Tournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: WesErd Harun Vemulapalli | Judge: Rohit Lakshman
The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement –
Offense links if it proves the rez true
Post fiat matters
Weigh by SOL, Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe, ect
A anything else moots 7 minutes of the NC – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that their theory of power is better than another before you adopt it.
B The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true so it's constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I've met my burden.
C it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins since debate is a game with rules given by how there’s a winner and loser. Answers collapse to truth testing since they require truth value i.e. truth testing is false requires proving that it is true that truth testing is false. Inclusion is a fallacy of origin because just because something is a prerequisite doesn’t make it more important
D Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn’t change anything, and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me.
E ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem.
F Other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape
Negate
Presumption and permissibility negates -A)resolution indicates the aff has to prove a proactive obligation, permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation)statements are more often false than true, there are infinite ways to prove the statement “this pen is red” false but one way to prove it true C) negate means to deny truth of, not prove false, so they both meet the neg burden
Aff has an absolute burden of proof – any doubt means you negate.
Luca , Andrei. “LogicWarrior Demand Reason.” LogicWarrior, 9 Oct. 2017, www.logicwarrior.net/tag/law-of-non-contradiction/.
This law is another seemingly obvious point but in practice the Law of Non-Contradiction is the foundation of argumentative validity. The Law of Non-Contradiction makes logic truth preserving so that you’ll never go from a true point and arrive at a false point. Contradiction negates logic, and while true paradox may be something fun which to reflect unless you’re attempting to unite with the godhead by reaching nirvana, contradiction simply has no place in logic. This is not to say that something can’t appear to be self-contradictory and this idea is the basis of a lot of statements of reflection. In the course of debate another definition may become useful: Both a claim and not that claim can’t be true. So, if a statement holds even a teensy weensy bit of falseness, it must be entirely false.
1Creating obligations is paradoxical
Derrida, Jacques Derrida, “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority” massa
But justice, however unpresentable it may be, doesn't wait.· It is that which must not wait. To be direct, simple and brief, let us say this: a just decision is always required immediately, "right away." It cannot furnish itself with infinite information and the unlimited knowledge of conditions, rules or hypothetical imperatives that could justify it. And even if it did have all that at its disposal, even if it did give itself the time, all the time and all the necessary facts about the matter, the moment of decision, as such, always remains a finite moment of urgency and precipitation, since it must not be the consequence or the effect of this theoretical or historical knowledge, of this reflection or this deliberation, since it always marks the interruption of the juridico- or ethico- or politico-cognitive deliberation that precedes it, that must precede it. The instant of decision is a madness, says Kierkegaard. This is particularly true of the instant of the just decision that must rend time and defy dialectics. It is a madness. Even if time and prudence, the patience of knowledge and the mastery of conditions were hypothetically unlimited, the decision would be structurally finite, however late it came, decision of urgency and precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule
2 Merrian websters defines state as
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state
Definition of state (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: mode or condition of being
But conditions of being can’t have obligations so negate since the rez is false
3 Merrian Websters defines right as
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
having the axis perpendicular to the base
But there is no base for strikes to be perpendicular to, so the rez does nothing
4 Oxford Dictionary defines ought as “used to indicate something that is probable.”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa
5Neg definition choice-anything else moots 7 mins of the 1NC since I premised my engagement on your lack of a definition, they had a chance to define the resolution in the 1AC but didn’t.
6 Paradoxes – AMeno’s – in order to discover something, it must not be known, but in order to know to discover something, it must already be known – this makes the quest for knowledge incomprehensible and thus impossible BGood Samaritan – in order to say I want to fic x problem, you must say that you want x problem to exist, since it requires the problem exist to solve, which makes an moral attempt inherently immoral C Induction – either it’s the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there’s no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other’s actions, and will cancel out the obligations. D Decision Making Paradox- in order to decide to do the affirmative we need a decision-making procedure to enact it, vote for it, and to determine it is a good decision. But to chose a decision-making procedure requires another meta level decision making procedure leading to infinite regress since every decision requires another decision to chose how to make a decision. E either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption because there isn’t a proactive obligation or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen.