| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Valley | 2 | BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Breigh Plat |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley | 4 | Eden Prairie SD | Jim Gray |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley | 5 | McNeil AG | Lauren McBlain |
|
|
| |
| Badgerland | 1 | Stockdale RP | Braedon Kirkpatrick |
|
|
| |
| Badgerland | 4 | Iowa City West JS | Thomas-McGinnis, Conal |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Lincoln East EB | Sim Guerrero |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 4 | Strath Haven AM | William Thornton |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Strake Jesuit KS | Chaudhary, Vishan |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | 4 | BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Arun Mehra |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | 1 | Scarsdale OL | Faizaan Dossani |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | 6 | Trinity Prep LK | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 2 | Acton-Boxborough SP | Tamkin, Jacob |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Brentwood MD | Kopf, Kyle |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Presentation NR | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 1 | Bergen County Academies AK | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 5 | West Des Moines Valley MM | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 3 | West HS SLC HZ | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Evergreen Valley SS | Blake Andrews |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 2 | Appleton North MU | Curry, Ausha |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 3 | Harrison TB | Brian Zhou |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 7 | Eagan AE | Clough, Zac |
|
|
| |
| Info | Finals | You | Them |
|
| ||
| 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 |
|
|
| |
| 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 |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational | 5 | NSU SF | Austin Broussard |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 2 | Lexington AM | Noah Rantilla |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 4 | Ridge VS | Eric He |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 5 | Dulles VN | Simila, Nicholas |
|
|
| |
| TOC | Quarters | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Semis | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Finals | You | Me |
|
| ||
| This one | 2 | You | Someone |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Apple Valley | 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Breigh Plat 1AC - Pragatism Hella Tricks AFC Adv |
| Apple Valley | 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie SD | Judge: Jim Gray 1AC - Labor Rights |
| Apple Valley | 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Lauren McBlain 1AC - Giroux |
| Badgerland | 1 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 1AC - Democracy |
| Badgerland | 4 | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 1AC - Semiocap |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Opponent: Lincoln East EB | Judge: Sim Guerrero 1AC - Witchcraft K |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 4 | Opponent: Strath Haven AM | Judge: William Thornton 1AC - Substainable Space AC |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Chaudhary, Vishan 1AC - Debris |
| Blue Key | 4 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Arun Mehra 1AC - Pragmatism AFC |
| Blue Key | 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 1AC - Korsgaard Indexicals |
| Blue Key | 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1AC - Minimizing Strucural Opression |
| Glenbrooks | 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Tamkin, Jacob 1AC - Labor Unions AC |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Opponent: Brentwood MD | Judge: Kopf, Kyle 1AC - Workers Rights |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1AC - Time Machine AC |
| Grapevine | 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Truman Le 1AC - Util Covid Waviers |
| Grapevine | 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Locke AFC 1 Response Shell TT Resolved Apriori |
| Grapevine | 3 | Opponent: West HS SLC HZ | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Wynter |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Blake Andrews 1AC - The Impossible Bomb |
| Harvard | 2 | Opponent: Appleton North MU | Judge: Curry, Ausha 1AC - Space Mining AC Collisions Adv Space Wars Adv Util |
| Harvard | 3 | Opponent: Harrison TB | Judge: Brian Zhou 1AC - Ethnofuturism |
| Harvard | 7 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Clough, Zac 1AC - Mega Constellations AC |
| 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 |
| New York City Invitational | 5 | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Austin Broussard Evidence Ethics Challenge by me |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Lexington AM | Judge: Noah Rantilla 1AC - Public Trust Docterine AC Util |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Ridge VS | Judge: Eric He 1AC - Debris Adv Collaboration Adv |
| Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Dulles VN | Judge: Simila, Nicholas 1AC - Public Trust Doctrines |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Accessibility FormattingTournament: This one | Round: 2 | Opponent: You | Judge: Someone This section is a rundown on some quick tips and tricks on how to more easily create accessibly formatted speech docs. Please try to follow these instructions. (This how-to applies to Verbatim) | 10/30/21 |
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 - 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 - Colt PeacemakerTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 2Colt Peacemaker A. Interpretation: If the aff differs from the conventional truth testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:1. Clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and which comes first.2. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, such as whether or not the aff comes before theory.3. Clarify how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement.My ROB evaluates both post and pre-fiat, but pre-fiat comes first. Theory is allowed and comes before the ROB. ROB is determined off of the flow ~and performative offense~ B. Violation: You didn’tC. Standards:1. Engagement – I don’t know what offense links to your aff which proves I can’t reasonably contest it – knowing what a legit advocacy is in conjunction with knowing how to weigh prevents preclusive and superficial claims about the aff. Key to fairness, education and is an independent voter since debate requires that we have a point of contestation where we answer each other’s claims in an in-depth fashion. Also key to novice inclusion because they don’t know your K lit or what your ROB says which means you exclude them – inclusion is a voter because you can’t debate if you can’t participate.2. Strategy Skew – You make formulating a strategy impossible since I don’t know what links to your evaluative mechanism. If I go for a policy action, you can say the 1AC is about speech acts and do that weighing to exclude all my offense. I’m screwed with regards to theory since if I read it, you’ll use the aff to take it out but if I don’t, you’ll uplayer which proves spec is key.Framing: You can’t use your ROB to exclude my shell. My shell allows you to read your role of the ballot, it just functionally constrains how you can do that. Additionally, as long as I win comparative offense to my interp it precludes on a methodological level – my method is your ROB with specification, your method is just the ROB, so if the former is better it’s a reason to vote for me even if method debates in general preclude theory. Fairness is a prior question to determining the truth of a claim because absent fairness, it’s impossible to test whether one side is right. Also, if they go for the K first that proves the abuse of my shell since they should have specified in the AC.D. Voters:Fairness is a voter – a) Debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation, and b) Debaters will quit if it’s unfair. Education is a voter – it’s the only portable benefit of 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. Evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr because I don’t have another speech to point out new extrapolations and respond to new arguments. Drop the debater to deter future abuse and set better norms. | 1/28/22 |
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 - First 3 Last 3Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: Brentwood MD | Judge: Kopf, Kyle 1A. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all previously read positions before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words.B. Violation: You didn’t - I have screenshotsC. Standards:1. Evidence Quality – Disclosure generates an information database that encourages debaters to find the best evidence on the topic. Key to education since we have better debates with better arguments.Nails 13 ~(Jacob, NDT Policy Debater at Georgia State University), "A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third Party Disclosure)",NSDUpdate,10/10/2013EM~ 2. Quality engagement —- disclosure allows in-depth preparation before the round which checks back against unpredictable positions and allows debaters to effectively write case negs and blocks. Not just in the context of this round, but for rounds in general. Quality engagement is an independent voter because the constitutive reason we debate is to engage and clash our arguments otherwise we would just be doing oratory. It’s also key to fairness since I need to have prep to win. This means vote on inclusion since debaters of lower skill level can have a chance to engage with better debaters which makes debate less centered towards those with larger coaching staffs.3. Academic Ethics —- disclosure deters mis-cutting, power-tagging, abuse of brackets and ellipses, and plagiarism. This is an independent reason to vote you down because it promotes better norms about academic engagement—-debate is an academic environment and must ensure that we become fair scholars. Even if you don’t lose on fairness in the round, you will lose in college if you violate academic ethics which establish a crucial real-world norm, and outweighs any in-round impact.D. Voters:Fairness is a voter – a) Debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation, and b) Debaters will quit if it’s unfair. Education is a voter – it’s the only portable benefit of 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. Evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr because I don’t have another speech to point out new extrapolations and respond to new arguments. Drop the debater to deter future abuse and set better norms. | 11/21/21 |
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 Have Contact InfoTournament: Blue Key | Round: 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1Interpretation – debaters must have a wiki with contract information specific to the debater who is debatingViolation – their school isn’t on the wiki, see screenshot, u can check urself
~1~ Safety – having a wiki is key to understand any accessibility concerns like trigger warnings or potentially sensitive topics. Absent a wiki there’s no way to tell – not having contact information makes it worse because there’s no way to verify it preround which kills 1NC strat construction. Inclusion is a voter – you can’t debate if you can’t participate – also means I can’t contact you preround.~2~ Disclosure is good – open sourcing and disclosing round reports are a good thing because it levels the playing field – big schools have flows and docs but small schools won’t have access to such resources without things like open source – you don’t do that and our norm necessitates that everyone discloses everything – I didn’t get the aff 30 minutes before the round which means err neg on offense. Fairness is a voter since debate is a game and we’re both here to win.~1~ DTD on 1nc theory and disclosure – a) disclosure cannot be drop the argument because it would just drop you because you’re the norm b) deterrenceNo RVI’s - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive. | 10/30/21 |
1 - Must Have Font Size 13Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 4Interpretation: Debaters must send all of the text in their speech document as font size 13 or larger before they begin the speech in which they read the document.Violation: They don’tPrefer:~1~ Evidence Ethics – Shrinking font encourages miscutting evidence because it makes reading lines in the evidence that weren’t read in their speech really hard. Additionally, even if there’s no intentional miscutting, having the ability to read every line in the evidence is important to fully comprehend its meaning and understand context, so making any part of the evidence inaccessible is an effort to prevent in-depth engagement with nuanced warrants of evidence – kills my ability to prep and engage the aff. Drop them – my interp indicts every argument they make since they could have lied about it so there’s no drop the arg – also uniquely key to deterrence since it discourages them from ever wanting to make ev small again, setting norms. You can’t be reasonable on evidence ethics – either their interp allows for it or itTo pre-empt the CI, arbitrary counterinterps like "font 7 is big enough" are self-serving and infinitely regressive – the fact that they tried to hide any amount of evidence is bad. | 10/30/21 |
1 - Must Have Unified Solvency AdvocateTournament: Blue Key | Round: 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 5Interpretation: The affirmative must have a unified solvency advocate for their plan text.Violation: they don’t have a unified solvency advocate for their advocacy – the evidence just says it might result in low productivity.Standards:~1~ Topic Lit – Allowing them to tack on extra planks means they can create Frankenstein Affs that aren’t in the topic literature. That kills predictability and also kills the negative’s ability to prep because no author writes critically about their aff because it does not exist in the lit. Key to fairness because I cannot engage in the first place if the affirmative is unpredictable. Key to education because I cannot read any of my negative prep which harms engagement.~2~ We don’t hurt creativity – there is already a plethora of interesting and well-supported Affs on this topic like contact tracing, green infrastructure, and more. They need to show that there is a unique benefit to homemade affs that aren’t grounded in the literature. You actively destroy by allowing debaters to be lazy and make up stuff. | 10/30/21 |
1 - Must Read Plan TextTournament: New York City Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Brendon Morris | 10/16/21 |
1 - New Affs BadTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Interpretation: 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.Fairness since it’s the constitutive purpose of debate – also jurisdicts all arguments since you can only evaluate with fiarness.Disclosure 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 | 10/30/21 |
1 - Potential InterpsTournament: Info | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Them Disclosure Interpretation: The aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki page, debaters must disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases. To clarify – you don’t have to include the full text of each, you just have to substitute them with a few words that summarize the thesis of the argument i.e. ‘actor specificity’ rather than ‘analytic’ Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Interpretation: if the aff reads an advocacy other than the current NSDA resolution, then they must disclose the advocacy on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki before the round. To clarify, if you do not defend the topic, you must disclose the aff before the round. Misc Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolution through state or location action. They must defend either federal legislation, an executive order, or a reversal of current decisions through the Supreme Court. Interpretation: If either debater reads a truth testing role of the ballot, they must explicitly specify in a text how the round ought to play out under the role of the ballot. Interpretation: If debaters disclose multiple disclosure interpretations, then those interpretations must not conflict with one another. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the aff must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: If the affirmative debater claims that the rule following paradox is a relevant problem ethical theories must be able to resolve, and claim that social practices solve the rule following paradox, they must clarify in the form of a text in the AC what counts as an ethical practice verified by the community. Interpretation: All 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. 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. Interpretation: The aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters who make presumption arguments must articulate the set of conditions under which presumption can become relevant in the evaluation of the round. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments to justify any theoretical or substantive paradigm issues in the aff. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads affirming is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the exact text of the resolution, then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: All evidence that derives claims from historical events must have a citation. To clarify, this isn’t saying that you should cite that something like WWII happened, but nuanced empirical claims about historical projects and society’s reactions to those projects should have a citation. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not justify both epistemic modesty and extinction outweighs. Interpretation: Debaters may not read extinction first under any framework. Interpretation: The neg may not derive a route to the ballot premised on the flaws of the aff framework. To clarify, framework Ks are bad. Interpretation: On the 2021-2022 September-October LD Topic, the affirmative may not gain offense from outside the scope of the resolution. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: If the aff differs from the conventional truth testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads graphic depictions of ableism, they must give a content warning before their speech. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads an offensive theoretical argument that claims that the negative must concede the affirmative framework, they must provide a list of potential violations and permissible practices under that interpretation. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose race specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the racial identity of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose disability specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the ability status of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose queerness specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the sexual orientation or gender of the debater. Clarification about the three shells above, this is NOT saying identity based arguments are bad, but rather that you shouldn't make arguments like "disabled debaters get RVIs." Interpretation: The affirmative must use personal knowledge, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals, to garner offense. Interpretation: Debaters may not read offensive theoretical interpretations in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolutional action. Interpretation: All debater’s theory shells must operate through NCM, or the norm-creation model, not the abuse model. To clarify, an interpretation under NCM necessitates that a proposed interpretation would produce better norms for debate than the mutually exclusive counter-interp and that those norms should be endorsed. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend the resolution in active voice. Interpretation: The Aff must present a concrete strategy for the operationalization of their advocacy through specific institution outside of debate. Interpretation: The affirmative debater may not read multiple necessary burdens for themselves but is also an insufficient burden for me. To clarify more than one NIBs bad. Interpretation: The affirmative must explicitly indicate their standards conception of the subject or their identity if it exists in a delineated text in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not read descriptive frameworks. Interpretation: If debaters read evidence whose text is modified with brackets, for each affected card the debater must say out loud that the evidence is bracketed and for what purpose, either immediately before or after reading the evidence. Interpretation: Debaters cannot have graphs, images, or charts used to garner offense in their speech doc. Interpretation: All offense proving the resolution true or false must impact to a necessary and sufficient standard. Standards must have only one evaluative mechanism, which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails all true normative propositions. Interpretation: All theoretical interpretations must be worded proactively to indicate what debaters must do. Note: I reserve the right to read shells contextual to the round in order to check for abuse if I feel as though the violation is particularly egregious. | 11/24/21 |
1 - Spec CSATournament: Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles VN | Judge: Simila, Nicholas 1Interp: If the affirmative defends anything other than "The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust", they must provide a counter solvency advocate.ViolationPrefer1. Limits – there are infinite things you could which pushes you to uncontestable arguments. Even if your interp, the only way to verify if it’s fair is proof of counter-arguments.2. Shiftiness- CSA conceptualizes what their advocacy is and how it’s implemented. Ambiguous affs we don’t know about can’t delink if they delineate these things.3. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own view points and encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses.Fairness – a) you conceded the judge will fairly evaluate your argument b) its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluationEducation – a) it’s the only reason why schools fund debate b) it’s the only portable impact to debateNo RVI’s- a) logic – you shouldn’t win for being fair b) clash – people go all in on theory which decks substance engagement c) chilling effect – people will be too scared to read theory because RVI’s encourage baiting theory | 2/5/22 |
1 - TJFs and Substantive Justifications BadTournament: Apple Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Breigh Plat TJFs + Substantive Justifications BadInterpretation: Debaters may not read frameworks with both normative and theoretical justifications. To clarify, theoretical justifications link back to fairness and education.Violation: They read TJF’s and normative justifications – we asked in cx~C~ Standards:~1~ Philosophical education—~1~ Strat Skew—~D~ Voters extempted | 11/6/21 |
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 - FW - Util v2Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie SD | Judge: Jim Gray The standard is maximizing expected well-being.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) | 11/6/21 |
2 - FW - Util v3Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Tamkin, Jacob FramingThe standard is minimizing death- Our framework is only concerned with saving lives. Calc indicts don’t link—my framework evaluates offense—climate change is bad because as far as we know, is would cause suff. ,ering.~1~ Death outweighs— ~a~ agents can’t act if they fear for their bodily security—my framework constrains every NC and K and ~b~ it’s the worst form of evilPaterson 3 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics. AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82 2~ Actor spec—governments must use util because they don’t have intentions and are constantly dealing with tradeoffs—outweighs since different agents have different obligations—takes out calc indicts since they are empirically denied.3~ Preserving life is a pre-requisite to the ideal conditions their theory assumes — all value stems from experienced wellbeing.4~ Weighability – cant weigh between different forms of opression which means only we can explain the differences between ethicality. | 11/21/21 |
2 - K - DisabilityTournament: 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. | 1/28/22 |
2 - K - Disability 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. | 1/28/22 |
2 - K - Disability 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. | 1/28/22 |
2 - K - Disability v4Tournament: Badgerland | Round: 4 | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 2Ableism 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 Jia 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. You are 100 futurism – don’t buy into their BS claims they attatched a single card to link out of the k but yous till link all yoru capitalism stuff and fights about climate change are trying to make the world better – those are still orientations of futurismMollow 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 disabilitySiebers 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 a method of autoethonography – an incorporation and affirmation of disabled experience in order to bring to light a rejection of the affirmative d exclusion of dis/ability, the aff is something that is always tied to the subjugation of disabled bodies.Selck 16 Michael (2016): Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Jia AND spots just like the hands of the Red Bud Elementary second grade class. 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. | 1/28/22 |
2 - K - Disability v5Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1Ableism 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 Jia 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 disabilitySiebers 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 performativity of gender is based on the ability to move and present oneself – this expression is especially pervasive in queer communities==== AND take up space—are all based upon how non disabled people move. 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. | 1/28/22 |
2 - K - Disability v6Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lincoln East EB | Judge: Sim Guerrero 2Ableism 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 Jia AND of violation" that resonates with experiences recounted by survivors of sexual assault. The 1AC’s belief of a better future becomes complicit in the logic of rehabilitative futurism, which is threatened by the Disabled Child.Mollow 2 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow 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 Jia AND promised, would bring forth a better future." (68-69) The 1ACs focus on epistemic performativity erases the material conditions of disability and is an independent linkSiebers 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 – communicative spheres always zone out disability – anything that doesn’t begin from the question of disability allows ableism to infiltrate academia so breaking down notions of progress is necessary in the face of social death. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best disrupts notions of progress within civil society.Selck 16 Selck, Michael L. "Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't." (Jan 2016) Jia recut AND in many cases all we need to witness those consequences is a slight perspectival | 1/29/22 |
2 - K - Disability v7Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison TB | Judge: Brian Zhou 2Ableism 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 Jia AND of violation" that resonates with experiences recounted by survivors of sexual assault. The 1AC’s belief of a better future becomes complicit in the logic of rehabilitative futurism, which is threatened by the Disabled Child.Mollow 2 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow 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 Jia AND promised, would bring forth a better future." (68-69) The starting point of the 1AC is epistemically flawed and an independent link – anything that doesn’t begin from the question of disability allows ableism to infiltrate academia breaking down notions of progress is necessary in the face of social death. Thus, the ROB 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.Jia AND a form of harm in need of improvement, cure or indeed eradication. Communicative spheres always zone out disability – the alternative is to endorse the negative and unwavering pessimism – breaking down notions of progress is necessary in the face of social death.Selck 16 Selck, Michael L. "Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't." (Jan 2016) Jia recut AND cases all we need to witness those consequences is a slight perspectival shift. 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)Jia AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. | 2/19/22 |
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 - SecurityTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strath Haven AM | Judge: William Thornton 3The aff embodies a political ontology driven by the security of the nation state. This makes their impacts inevitable and cyclical, perpetuating conflict.Burke ‘13 – Anthony, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations in the University of New South Wales, 2013 ("Security cosmopolitanism," Critical Studies on Security (Vol. 1, No. 1, 13–28) Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Tandfonline)Jia AND under the conditions of modernity on this earth, not external to them. The ROB is to reject security discourse – if we win their starting point is based in the violent logic of security – they can’t weigh their endpoint, the acceptance allows and manifests violence – vote neg to reject this constructivist rhetoric.Burke 2 ~Anthony, Lecturer in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Univ of New South Wales, "Aporias of Security," Alternatives 27.1, jstor, GDI-ALG~Jia AND or a security after security, and what its shimmering possibilities might be. | 1/29/22 |
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 - K - Util v2Tournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Appleton North MU | Judge: Curry, Ausha Justifying util is an independent voter –1. Util can’t justify intrinsic wrongness – We can’t know whether our action was good until we’ve evaluated the states of affairs they’ve produced since it’s based on the outcome of the action. Probability doesn’t solve because that just allows for moral error and freezes action while attempting to calculate the perfect decision.2. Util justifies death good – the absence of pleasure is not bad since there is no life to calculate its lossed value and experience its absence but the lack of pain is actively good even if that good cannot be enjoyed by anyone because it would still have net value.Two Impacts:~2~ They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to negate, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 2/19/22 |
2 - K - Util v3Tournament: Harvard | Round: 7 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Clough, Zac 1Justifying util is an independent voter –1. Util justifies atrocities since it justifies allowing us to harm some for the benefit of others – even if they spew some pain quantifiability argument that doesn’t solve since there are still instances some get great benefit from others harm.2. Util can’t justify intrinsic wrongness – We can’t know whether our action was good until we’ve evaluated the states of affairs they’ve produced since it’s based on the outcome of the action. Probability doesn’t solve because that just allows for moral error and freezes action while attempting to calculate the perfect decision.3. Util justifies death good – the absence of pleasure is not bad since there is no life to calculate its lossed value and experience its absence but the lack of pain is actively good even if that good cannot be enjoyed by anyone because it would still have net value.Two Impacts:~2~ They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 2/20/22 |
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 |
JANFEB - CP - Nuke DisarmamentTournament: Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles VN | Judge: Simila, Nicholas 3Counterplan Text: States ought to ban nuclear weapons – the counterplans competes through net benefitsThe CP solves disarms nukes - this card also explains implementation method and takes out circumvention.Van Der Meer '16 (Sico Van Der Meer; research Fellow at the Clingendael Institute. His research is focussing on non-conventional weapons like Weapons of Mass Destruction and cyber weapons from a strategic policy perspective. He also has a special interest in North Korea and relations between North and South Korea. He graduated from the Radboud University Nijmegen in 1999 with a Master’s in History. Before joining the Clingendael Institute, he worked as a journalist and as a Fellow of a think tank on civil-military relations. In 2016 he was seconded to the Taskforce International Cyber Policies of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; 2-15-2016; "Accelerating global nuclear disarmament: a menu of 16 policy options"; https://www.clingendael.org/publication/accelerating-global-nuclear-disarmament-menu-16-policy-options, No Publication, accessed 12-2-2019; JPark) AND , however, little to no progress has been made in such processes. | 2/5/22 |
JANFEB - DA - MiningTournament: Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ridge VS | Judge: Eric He 1If they win consequences matter – negate:Space mining is a key part of private appropriation and releases significantly less emissionsEmerging Technology 18, 10-19-2018, "Asteroid mining might actually be better for the environment," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/10/19/139664/asteroid-mining-might-actually-be-better-for-the-environment/~~//pranav//Jia Retagged for Lay AND in the numbers here, so these will need to be better understood. This is further pressed by the increasing demand in renewables – supercharges our impactsGilbert 21, (Alex Gilbert is a complex systems researcher and PhD student in Space Resources at the Colorado School of Mines, "Mining in Space is Coming"), 4-26-21, Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming Jia AND . The latter is considered one of the alternatives with the greatest potential. Warming also causes mass destruction – things like wildfires, tsunamis, and other natural disasters, with huge promoted shortages of food and water.Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Recut Jia AND complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change. | 2/5/22 |
JANFEB - NC - AuthenticityTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Chaudhary, Vishan 2Presumption and permissibility negates – a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted c) the aff has to prove an obligation which means lack of that obligation negatesConsequentialist theories require experiential authenticity:Theory – there are infinite ways something can be false, which pushes you to the limit of logical ones. Defending theories with illogical assumptions guts predictability since any possible wrong thing can emerge that we aren’t prepared to contest.First, the Experience Machine: Pleasures are intrinsically worthless without authentic experience.Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. 1974, rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil3160/Nozick1.pdf. Massa AND machine, others view as following one of the reasons not to surrender! Negate – objective knowledge of the external world is epistemically nonsensical.Neta, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. | 1/29/22 |
JANFEB - NC - KorsgaardTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strath Haven AM | Judge: William Thornton 2Ethics must begin apriori –~A~ Apriori Aposteriori Paradox – big bang proves our theory true – independent of material conditions there was some existence which necessitates objective truth absent material reality.~B~ Action theory – infinite division logically concludes from empiricism. i.e If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention unifies these actions. If we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral.~C~ Constitutive Authority – reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~D~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be.That 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:~1~ Performativity – 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.Offense~1~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. ~2~ To own yourself and use your own freedom is to be able to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things and creates a contradiction.Feser 2, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND ) where extra-personal property is concerned that is morally relevant here. | 1/29/22 |
JANFEB - NC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Chaudhary, Vishan 3Ethics must begin apriori –~A~ Apriori Aposteriori Paradox – big bang proves our theory true – independent of material conditions there was some existence which necessitates objective truth absent material reality.~B~ Action theory – infinite division logically concludes from empiricism. i.e If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention unifies these actions. If we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral.~C~ Constitutive Authority – reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~D~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be.That 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:~1~ Performativity – 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.Offense~1~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. ~2~ To own yourself and use your own freedom is to be able to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things and creates a contradiction in conception.Feser 2, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND ) where extra-personal property is concerned that is morally relevant here. Thus, self-ownership justifies the appropriation of property – our freedom necessitates being able to set and pursue external things as our ends, including exercising our rights on mining. Restricting this arbitrarily limits our freedom which is unjust.Feser 3, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND , with all the egalitarian mischief-making the proviso has made possible. | 1/29/22 |
JANFEB - NC - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles VN | Judge: Simila, Nicholas 2Presumption and permissibility negates – a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted c) the aff has to prove an obligation which means lack of that obligation negatesEthics must begin apriori –~A~ Apriori Aposteriori Paradox – big bang proves our theory true – independent of material conditions there was some existence which necessitates objective truth absent material reality.~B~ Action theory – infinite division logically concludes from empiricism. i.e If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention unifies these actions. If we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral.~C~ Constitutive Authority – reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~D~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be.That 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:~1~ Performativity – 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.~2~ Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~D~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~E~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine~3~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must 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 only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.Offense~1~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. ~2~ To own yourself and use your own freedom is to be able to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things and creates a contradiction in conception.Feser 2, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND ) where extra-personal property is concerned that is morally relevant here. Thus, self-ownership justifies the appropriation of property – our freedom necessitates being able to set and pursue external things as our ends, including exercising our rights on mining. Restricting this arbitrarily limits our freedom which is unjust.Feser 3, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND , with all the egalitarian mischief-making the proviso has made possible. ~3~ Private entities utilize their own property and resources to fund and conduct space exploration which means – Prohibition of it is a violation of a) Their ability to use their own property (like their rocketships or fuel) to set their ends in space and b). Their freedom to explore unknown horizons such as space.~4~ Negs get Contention Choice- It’s key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD. It also prevents splitting the debate allowing for in depth clash and 2ar judge psychology spins on the contention level which is key fairness and level playing field | 2/5/22 |
JANFEB - NC - Space InequalityTournament: Pennsbury Falcon Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington AM | Judge: Noah Rantilla FramingI negate Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.The value is Justice, defined as giving each their due, because the only reason to value anything else is because humans value it, which concedes that humans are valuable and deserving. Moreover, the resolution is an analysis of justice, which means only a value of justice can serve as an appropriate lens for the round.To ensure a just system, we must first ensure the system is all-inclusive and provides equal treatment for all parties involved. Thus, I provide the criterion of Minimizing Oppression. To clarify, the only impacts that link to my framework are those which disproportionately effect the least advantaged.Prefer my criterion for three additional reasons:~1~ Combatting structural oppression is a prerequisite to all other theories, as there must be total moral inclusion before a theory can be deemed legitimate.~2~ Prioritizing oppressed peoples allows us to focus action on those who need it, as opposed to generally pursuing goods for all.~3~ Ignoring structural oppression in pursuit of abstract theories legitimizes oppression by prioritizing the pursuit of arbitrary moral goods over real world consequences.This brings me to my first contention…Contention 1: Space MiningMany private entities anticipate appropriating space to mine asteroids, which releases nearly 300x less carbon emissions than earth-based mining – that’s key to prevent climate change.MIT Technology Review writes in 2018… AND in the numbers here, so these will need to be better understood. That outweighs for three reasons –First, climate change disproportionately impacts the marginalized – it ensures the destruction of homes, loss of life, and denial of stable living conditions, which is the epitome of structural oppression.Carmin Chappell 17 ~Carmin Chappell. . "Climate change in the US will hurt poor people the most, according to a bombshell federal report". 10-5-2017. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/climate-change-will-hurt-poor-people-the-most-federal-report.html. Accessed 12-27-2021~Jia AND made with low-income communities in mind, according to the report. Second, global warming also causes mass destruction – it triggers wildfires, tsunamis, and other natural disasters, with unreconcilable shortages of food and water across the globe.Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Recut Jia AND complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change. Third, asteroid mining solves climate change, resource shortages, and environmental degradation – independently its key to space colonization that solves every existential crisisHlimi 14 ~Tina Hlimi, Canadian lawyer with a Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Environmental Sciences from McGill University, 2014, "THE NEXT FRONTIER: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF NEAR-EARTH ASTEROID MINING," ANNALS OF AIR AND SPACE LAW, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=2546924~~/Kankee AND and population growth. B. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF NEAR EARTH ASTEROID MINING Fourth, by the increasing demand in renewables – this boosts the effects of space mining to further benefit the environment through eco-friendly energy alternatives that are financed by mining in space.Gilbert 21, (Alex Gilbert is a complex systems researcher and PhD student in Space Resources at the Colorado School of Mines, "Mining in Space is Coming"), 4-26-21, Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming Jia AND . The latter is considered one of the alternatives with the greatest potential. Five, Space Commercialization drives Tech Innovation in the Status Quo – it provides a unique impetus.Hampson 17 Joshua Hampson 1-25-2017 "The Future of Space Commercialization" https://republicans-science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/TheFutureofSpaceCommercializationFinal.pdf (Security Studies Fellow at the Niskanen Center)Elmer AND to global networks, and new opportunities could lead to wider economic growth. This brings me to my second and final contention… | 2/5/22 |
JANFEB - T - MiningTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Chaudhary, Vishan 1Interp – space mining isn’t appropriation – its not permanent and OST consensus.Hofmann and Bergamasco 19 ~Mahulena Hofmann (SES Chair in Space, SatCom and Media Law at the University of Luxembourg) and Federico Bergamasco (PhD Researcher in aviation, telecommunication and space law University of Luxembourg). "Space resources activities from the perspective of sustainability: legal aspects". Global Sustainability. 9 December 2019. Accessed 12/18/21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DF153F4A77970AC9E12444EC2B001F8A/S2059479819000279a.pdf/div-class-title-space-resources-activities-from-the-perspective-of-sustainability-legal-aspects-div.pdf Xu~ AND a system of international consultations aimed at avoiding any harmful interference with operations. OST is the standard for space law.Wikipedia No Date ~Wikipedia. "Outer Space Treaty." No Date. Accessed 12/18/21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer'Space'Treaty Xu~ AND —and another 23 are signatories.~1~~5~~note 1~ Semantics o/w –a~ Precision – they can arbitrarily jettison words which decks ground and preparation because there is no stasis pointb~ Jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the authority to vote aff if it wasn’t legitimateVote for predictable limits – their aff explodes the object of the resolution to include random space activities from tourism to research to satellite surveillance – that allows them to cherry-pick the best aff with no neg ground – also kills predictable advocacies which decks prepared engagement.No RVIs –a) good theory debaters will bait out theory and always win o/ws on normingb) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fairc) chilling effect – people are disincentivized from reading theory out of fear of losing on an RVId) Norming - if rvi I can’t concede counter interp if I’m wrong which means I have to advocate for bad normsfairness is a voter constitutive purpose of debate – education is a voter – only protable impact | 1/29/22 |
JANFEB - Theory - Spec Outer SpaceTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strath Haven AM | Judge: William Thornton 1Interp: The affirmative must define "outer space" in a delimited text in the 1AC."Outer Space" is flexible and has too many interps – normal means shows no consensusLeepuengtham 17 ~Tosaporn Leepuengtham (Research Judge, Intellectual Property and International Trade Division, Supreme Court of Thailand). "International space law and its implications for outer space activities." 01-27-2017, Accessed 12-9-2021. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781785369612/06'chapter1.xhtml duongie AND of space technology, this problem is worth considering now rather than later. Violation – you don’t.Prefer –1~ Stable Advocacy – they can redefine in the 1AR to wriggle out of DA’s which kills high-quality engagement and becomes two ships passing in the night –We lose access to Tech Race DA’s, Asteroid DA’s, basic case turns, and core process counter plans that have different definitions and 1NC pre-round prep.2~ Real World – Policy makers will always define the space that they are regulating. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, private entities can circumvent since there is no delineated way to enforce the aff and means their solvency can’t actualize.Fairness is a voter debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluationTopicality is a voting issue that should be evaluated through competing interpretations a~ it tells the negative what they do and do not have to prepare for b~ reasonability is arbitrary and incentivizes judge interventionNo RVIs—a~ it’s your burden to be topical. Anything else chills real abuse b~ forces theory debaters to bait theory and win on it every time | 1/29/22 |
NOVDEC - CP - PHOTournament: Apple Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie SD | Judge: Jim Gray | 11/6/21 |
NOVDEC - CP - TeachersTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Tamkin, Jacob 1CP Text: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of all workers except for teachers to strike.Biden made education a core priority in his post covid recovery plan and is investing billions of dollars-education is on the riseUSDE 4-29 Pandemic 4-29-2021, "100 Days of the Biden Administration: How the Department of Education Has Helped More Schools Safely Reopen and Meet Students Needs," No Publication, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/100-days-biden-administration-how-department-education-has-helped-more-schools-safely-reopen-and-meet-students-needs//SJJK AND Administration remains committed to accelerating this critical progress in the nation's reopening efforts. Teacher strikes can be disastrous and hurt student growth.Norton and Hernandez 18 ~Hilary and Tracy. Hilary Norton is BizFed chair and executive director of FAST (Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic). Tracy Hernandez is the founding CEO of the Los Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed) and president of IMPOWER Inc.. "Commentary: A teachers strike is bad for our students, families and economy ". 10-10-2018. No Publication. http://laschoolreport.com/commentary-a-teachers-strike-is-bad-for-our-students-families-and-economy/.~~ SJVM AND improve our city’s education system for all. Keep our future leaders learning! Education is needed to solve extinction.Peter Serdyukov 17. National University, La Jolla, California. 03/27/2017. "Innovation in Education: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What to Do about It?" Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4–33. AND one turns in education" (Matthew, 1964, p. v). | 11/21/21 |
NOVDEC - DA - Business ConfidenceTournament: Badgerland | Round: 1 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 1Business confidence high nowConference Board 5/19 Conference Board. "The Conference Board Measure of CEO Confidence™." CEO Confidence Hit All-Time High in Q2 | The Conference Board, 19 May 2021, www.conference-board.org/research/CEO-Confidence/. AND more over the next year, virtually unchanged from 36 in Q1. A shift toward pro-union policies cause fear in businessJohn DiNardo University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and NBER David S. Lee UC Berkeley and NBER https://www.princeton.edu/~~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf AND wage countries such as China and Mexico, and increasing international capital mobility. Business confidence dictates growthMcQuarie 16 McQuarie, Economic risk consulting firm, 5 factors that impact business and consumer confidence, 25 May 2016 https://www.macquarie.com/au/advisers/expertise/market-insights/business-consumer-confidence-australia TR AND and the willingness and capacity to engage in risk-taking is curtailed. Nuclear WarTønnesson 15 Stein Tønnesson, PhD from the University of Oslo, is research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO), adjunct professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research,Uppsala University where he leads a six-year research programme on the East AsianPeace, associate editor for Asia in the Journal of Peace Research, International Area Studies Review, 2015, Vol. 18(3), "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace", 297–311 AND happen economic collapse in and of itself is horrible and leads to mass death | 11/13/21 |
NOVDEC - DA - Business Confidence v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Tamkin, Jacob 2Business Confidence is high now – best surveys.ICAEW 8-20 8-20-2021 "Business confidence remains at record high as economy gets sales boost" https://www.icaew.com/about-icaew/news/press-release-archive/2021-news-releases/business-confidence-remains-at-record-high-as-economy-gets-sales-boost (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales)Elmer AND , but finances are fragile and any additional costs could threaten the recovery." Right to Strike has unintended effects that threaten growth and business confidence.Tenza 20, Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (lecturer in the field of Labour Law at the School of Law. He holds a LLM Degree.)Elmer AND was held not to be in line with good conduct of striking.26 ExtinctionMcLennan 21 – Strategic Partners Marsh McLennan SK Group Zurich Insurance Group, Academic Advisers National University of Singapore Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, University of Pennsylvania, "The Global Risks Report 2021 16th Edition" "http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF'The'Global'Risks'Report'2021.pdf Re-cut by Elmer AND less willing or less able to step in to find a peaceful solution. CaseImpact calc –1~ Extinction outweighs:A~ Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessitiesB~ Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalC~ Mathematically outweighs.MacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ AND with the benefit of keeping one’s options open while one gains new information. Advantage1NC – Replacements DeficitMackay ruling rendered the right to strike useless- employers can legally hire permanent replacements for striking workers- trumps Section 7Popes 04 Pope, James Gray (Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Rutgers University). "How American workers lost the right to strike, and other tales." Michigan Law Review 103.3 (2004): 518-553. AND , where the employer targeted active unionists for replacement) or among strikebreakers. 1NC – Strike Clauses DeficitNO STRIKE CLAUSES IN UNION CONTRACTS MEAN STRIKES WON’T HAPPEN EVEN IF GOVERNMENTS PERMIT THEMHamilton 5-4 HAMILTON NOLAN (labor reporter for In These Times. He has spent the past decade writing about labor and politics for Gawker, Splinter, The Guardian, and elsewhere) 5/4/21, Get Rid of No-Strike Clauses and Stop Begging, https://inthesetimes.com/article/no-strike-clause-labor-peace-union-contracts AND receive, in turn, a guarantee that those workers will be quiescent. 1NC – Illegal Strikes TurnIllegal strikes solve better and aff strikes become water downed and negotiated out by the state- TURNS CASEReddy 21 Reddy, Diana (Doctoral Researcher in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program at UC Berkeley) "" There Is No Such Thing as an Illegal Strike": Reconceptualizing the Strike in Law and Political Economy." Yale LJF 130 (2021): 421. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-illegal-strike-reconceptualizing-the-strike-in-law-and-political-economy AND . analogizes these strikes to the tactics of the civil-rights movement. RECENT TEACHER STRIKES PROVE, ILLEGAL STRIKES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE. THEY DON’T HAVE TO PLAY BY LAWS THAT WATER DOWN EFFICACYBlanc 20 Blanc, Eric (doctoral candidate in sociology at NYU researching public sector labor organizing) "Breaking the law: Strike bans and labor revitalization in the red state revolt." Labor Studies Journal 45.1 (2020): 74-96. AND the law undercut the potential for a united walkout of all school employees. 1NC – Countermobilization TurnStrikes fail and spark countermobilization.Grant and Wallace 91 ~Don Sherman Grant; Ohio State University; Michael Wallace; Indiana University; "Why Do Strikes Turn Violent?" University of Chicago Press; March 1991; https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2781338.pdf?refreqid=excelsior3Aca3144a9ae9e4ac65e285f2c67451ffb~~ Justin AND violence. Of course, history is replete with examples of elites' inflicting violence Labor UnionsLabor unions effective – no need for more strikesGraham 16’ Graham, James. "A Reconsideration of the Right to Strike." The Catholic Lawyer 9.2 (2016): 4. AND only as a last resort and in situations where it needs no justification. | 11/21/21 |
NOVDEC - DA - Market CrashTournament: Apple Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie SD | Judge: Jim Gray Contention 2: Market CrashThe stock market is trending upwards but it’s uncertain – blips aren’t enough to disprove the general trend and recent developments prove.Miao and Macheel 10/21 ~Tanaya and Hannah; 10/21/21; Reporter at CNBC, Associate Markets Reporter, graduated summa cum laude from Duke University with a degree in public policy; "SandP 500 slips from record, but heads for winning week on strong earnings," CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html~~ Justin AND foreign bondholders, staving off a default for the property developer. Best data proves union strike victories statistically cause stock market crash.Lee and Mas 12 ~David; Princeton University and National Bureau of Economic Research; Alexandre; Princeton University and National Bureau of Economic Research; "Long-Run Impacts of Unions on Firms: New Evidence from Financial Markets, 1961–1999," The Quarterly Journal Of Economics; February 2012; https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/127/1/333/1834007?redirectedFrom=fulltext~~ Justin AND returns for cases where the union won the election by a large margin. The next market crash causes economic collapse – conditions are ripe for failure.Vallejo 10/4 ~Justin; 10/4/21; Citing personal finance expert Robert Kiyosaki; "‘Biggest crash in world history’: Personal finance expert Robert Kiyosaki predicts economic crisis in October," Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-kiyosaki-market-crash-october-b1930754.html~~ Justin AND than $300bn in debt – the most indebted company in the world. Extinction.Liu '18 ~Qian; 11/13/18; Managing Director of Greater China for The Economist Group, previously director of the global economics unit and director of Access China for the Economist Intelligence Unit, PhD in economics from Uppsala University; "The next economic crisis could cause a global conflict. Here's why," https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/the-next-economic-crisis-could-cause-a-global-conflict-heres-why/~~ Justin AND sensible and respectful global dialogue. The alternative may well be global conflagration. | 11/6/21 |
NOVDEC - NC - KorsgaardTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 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. Our framing is youc an hinder a hinderance – we’ve contested it – its better cuz you can check back on freedom violationsOffense~1~ Strikes fail to fulfill dutyFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND and demonstrating labor strike action is not adhering to duty or morally permissible. ~2~ Uses others as a mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND the social work training process and is enshrined in the professional ethical codes. ~3~ Violates the commitment to not cause harmFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND , and the most vulnerable members of society will be impacted the most. ~4~ Strikes in essential services hurt the patient but not the employer which reduces the patient to a mere means to an end.Loewy 2K, Erich H. "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes." Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. (Erich H. Loewy M.D., F.A.C.P., was born in Vienna, Austria in 1927 and was able to escape first to England and then to the U.S. in late 1938. He was initially trained as a cardiologist. He taught at Case Western Reserve and practiced in Cleveland, Ohio. After 14 years he devoted himself fully to Bioethics and taught at the University of Illinois for 12 years. In 1996 he was selected as the first endowed Alumni Association Chair of Bioethics at the University of California Davis School of Medicine and has taught there since.) JG AND to "hurt" patients and often patients known to the healthcare professionals. | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - NC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 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.Offense~1~ Strikes fail to fulfill dutyFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND and demonstrating labor strike action is not adhering to duty or morally permissible. ~2~ Uses others as a mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND the social work training process and is enshrined in the professional ethical codes. | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - NC - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Badgerland | Round: 1 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 4Permissibility 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 constitutive~C~ Action theory – infinite division logically concludes from empiricism. i.e If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention unifies these actions. If we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral.~D~ Korsgaards Wager – Korsgaard is or korsgaard is not – inconsistency with perfect duties means infinite badness, that means a 1 chance of apriori ethics being true means you affirm since anything else risks infinite immorality which outweighs any chance of it being wrong.That 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.1~ Strikes violate individual autonomy by exercising coercion.Gourevitch 18 ~Alex; Brown University; "The Right to Strike: A Radical View," American Political Science Review; 2018; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0003055418000321~~ Justin AND liberties nor the related laws that strikers violate when using certain coercive tactics. 2~ Means to an end: employees ignore their duty to help their patients in favor of higher wages which treats them as a means to an end.3~ The aff homogenizes all strikes as an unconditional right which is unethical.Loewy 2K, Erich H. "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes." Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. (Erich H. Loewy M.D., F.A.C.P., was born in Vienna, Austria in 1927 and was able to escape first to England and then to the U.S. in late 1938. He was initially trained as a cardiologist. He taught at Case Western Reserve and practiced in Cleveland, Ohio. After 14 years he devoted himself fully to Bioethics and taught at the University of Illinois for 12 years. In 1996 he was selected as the first endowed Alumni Association Chair of Bioethics at the University of California Davis School of Medicine and has taught there since.) JG AND be "professionals," may legitimately proceed and yet fulfill their basic purpose. 4~ Free-riding: strikes are a form of free-riding since those who don’t participate still reap the benefits.Dolsak and Prakash 19 ~Nives and Aseem; We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs; "Climate Strikes: What They Accomplish And How They Could Have More Impact," 9/14/19; Forbes; https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2019/09/14/climate-strikes-what-they-accomplish-and-how-they-could-have-more-impact/?sh=2244a9bd5eed~~ Justin AND , a large number of people have a strong preference for climate action. | 11/13/21 |
NOVDEC - NC - Logical ConsequenceTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 2The 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. Prior Question to argumentation and key to education – It doesn't matter what you’re warranting, everything stems from logical reasoning.Muchika, Celestine. "The Concept of Logic in Education." Kenyaplex.com, 2018, www.kenyaplex.com/resources/14317-the-concept-of-logic-in-education.aspx. Massa AND . 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 futile debate and the high-minded contempt encouraged by the moralistic stance. 5. 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 going to happen.2~ Motion is impossible – ~a~ To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance, and half of the remaining distance, and so forth to infinity – thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in a finite amount of time.3~ Them running the aff proves it negates – they haven’t read any timeframe weighing which means they had to justify that the paln would happen. | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - SkepticismTournament: Blue Key | Round: 6 | Opponent: Trinity Prep LK | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 6Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa External world skep is true.Neta 14, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. Even if it was possible to form sufficient reasons, those reasons are epistemically bankrupt in terms of their truth value because of the Gettier problem.Chapman 18, Andrew. "The Gettier Problem." 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, 25 July 2018, 1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/10/the-gettier-problem Massa | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - TFWTournament: Badgerland | Round: 4 | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal The alt is unconditional, I can’t kick it.1TFW vJiaInterpretation and Violation: debaters must defend that In a just government, workers ought to have the right to strikes. They didn’t -Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law====Words and Phrases ’64 ==== AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". Nations are defined territories with governmentsMerriam Webster ~Merriam Webster, 8-22-2021, accessed on 9-6-2021, Merriam-webster, "Definition of NATION", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation~~ Adam AND federation of tribes (as of American Indians)the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma Vote Neg –First is in round competitive equity – their interpretation explodes limits as the aff gets to choose literally anything they want, which justifies infinite affirmatives that are impossible for the neg to prep against, ensuring they’ll always be ahead and use competition standards like perms to erase neg ground. Infinite variations of affs. Kills ground – they can choose any non-controversial advocacy like racism bad, killing neg ground. The topic is agreed upon before round, is something we’ve done prep on, and allows for the equal division of ground. It serves as the only stable stasis point, which means they should defend it. Also, extra T they get offense from their method not just the topic which means that they’ll always win against topical neg since they’re more ready. Additionally, cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters – kills inclusion which is a prerequisite to engaging in your method and turns case.TVA solves – Defend a implementation of strikes to solve for semiocapitalism and fight back.Switch side debate solves – just read your argument on the negative and it solves your offense. | 1/28/22 |
NOVDEC - Theory - Gov Spec BadTournament: Badgerland | Round: 1 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 3Interpretation: The aff may not specify governments.Violation: They specify the EUStandards:1~ Limits – Giving them the broadest definition of "just" meaning democratic, there are at least 115 possible affs, and that number increases exponentially when you can specify a subset of workers on top of that. They could not give a substantial limit on what "just" means, meaning that number may be even higher2~ Topic education: Forces negative to defend hyper-specific positions, moving the debate away from the core of the topic which is about just governments, not specific states, and a broad right to strike, no guarantee of good substance on either side nor meaningful debate3~ Western domination: Specc’ing a state in this topic specifically asserts that a specific government is just (i.e. the US) inherently implies other governments are not considered just. Pushes harmful narrative of what countries (namely western countries like the US) are better than others and neglects harms of those countries (i.e. slavery, genocide, etc.) 3~ TVA Solves: run the plan as an advantage to whole resVoters:1~ Education – it’s the reason we do debate2~ Fairness - essential for any competitive activity and makes it impossible to judge the round without intervention3~ Prefer competing interps, reasonability invites a race to the bottom4~ Drop the debater: dropping the argument drops their entire advocacy + good for setting norms and deterring future abuse5~ No RVI’s: Being fair isn’t enough to win a debate, RVI’s incentivize frivolous theory as long as they have a prepped out counterinterp and justifies infinite abuse, also leads to baiting where you’ll just run abusive positions – o/ws on reversibility | 11/13/21 |
NOVDEC - Theory - Must Spec StrikeTournament: Apple Valley | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Lauren McBlain Interpretation: The affirmative debater must specify the type of strikes they defend in a delineated text in the 1AC.Violation: they didn’tStandards –1~ Topic lit – strikes are the core question of the topic and there’s no consensus on normal means so you must spec.Law Library AND the argument is between unions and not between a union and the employer. ====This acts as a resolvability standard. Debate must make sense and be comparable for the judge to decide which means it’s an independent voter and outweighs.==== 2~ Prep skew – I don’t know what they will be willing to clarify until CX which means I could go 6 minutes planning to read a disad and then get screwed over in CX when they spec a different type of strike. This means that CX can’t check because the time in between is when I should be formulating my strat and waiting until then is the abuse. Key fairness because I won’t be able to use the strat I formulated if you skewed my prep and will have a time disadvantageDrop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.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 | 11/6/21 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
11/6/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
11/13/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/29/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/29/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/29/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/30/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/30/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/30/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
11/21/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
11/21/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/10/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/11/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/19/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/19/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/20/22 | 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 |
| |
1/28/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/9/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/9/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/10/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/5/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/5/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
2/5/22 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
|