Dulles Nataraja Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 2 | James Logan RS | Weronicka Janczuk |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 3 | Loyola IB | Derek Ying |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Harker KB | Chris Castillo |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 7 | Harker AR | Anthony Brown |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 2 | Stephen F Austin EN | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 3 | Westlake MR | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 2 | Harker KB | Johnathan Hsu |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 4 | Wenatchee JK | Aisha bawany |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 6 | Southlake Carrol EP | Claudia Ribera |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 2 | Little Rock Central XJ | Jacob Lugo |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 3 | Harrison EM | Andrew Carrol |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 6 | Mercer Island KS | Eva Isakovic |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 1 | Claudia Taylor AA | Javier Navarette |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 4 | St Agnes EH | Sreyaash Das |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 6 | Plano West VV | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | Triples | Westwood PM | Holden Bukowsky Spencer Orlowski Nikhil Ajjarapu |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Presentation NR | Diana Alvarez |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 4 | Peninsula CS | Nathan Russell |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Honor VD | Donny Peters |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 2 | Marlborough TZ | Lauren Woodall |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 4 | Harker PG | Shahina Chatur |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 6 | Sidwell SW | Johnathan Meza |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | Doubles | Harket RT | Shahina Chatur, Jacob Nails, Lauren Woodall |
|
|
| |
| Pennbury | Octas | Hawken EB | Courtney Burke, Kumail Zaidi, and Macharia Samuel |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury | 2 | Ardsley KK | Isaac Stiepleman |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury | 3 | Fremont AK | Steven Sparling |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury | 5 | Brookfield East DJ | Nichola Simila |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 1 | Memorial SC | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 4 | Memorial BD | Chris Castillo |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 5 | Southlake Carrol SD | Angela Zhong |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | Doubles | Strake EP | Tyler Gamble, Vishal Sivamani, Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | Quarters | Memorial BD | Holden Bukowsky, Joseph Georges, Tyler Gamble |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | 2 | Stephen F Austin EN | Dylan Jones |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | 3 | Newman Smith SJ | Sarah Botsch-McGuinn |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | 5 | Carnegie Vanguard SR | Javier Navarette |
|
|
| |
| h | 9 | k | v |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 2 | Opponent: James Logan RS | Judge: Weronicka Janczuk 1ac- Kant v1 |
| Glenbrooks | 3 | Opponent: Loyola IB | Judge: Derek Ying 1ac- Kant v2 |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Chris Castillo 1ac - kant v3 |
| Glenbrooks | 7 | Opponent: Harker AR | Judge: Anthony Brown 1ac- kant v4 (lay version) |
| Grapevine | 2 | Opponent: Stephen F Austin EN | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1ac- Kant |
| Grapevine | 3 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: TJ Maher 1ac- Kant v2 |
| Heart of Texas | 2 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Johnathan Hsu 1ac- Kant v3 |
| Heart of Texas | 4 | Opponent: Wenatchee JK | Judge: Aisha bawany 1ac- kant v4 |
| Heart of Texas | 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1ac- kant v5 |
| Isidore Newman | 2 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Jacob Lugo 1ac - Kant v8 |
| Isidore Newman | 3 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Andrew Carrol 1ac - lay |
| Isidore Newman | 6 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Eva Isakovic 1ac- Bataille |
| Longhorn Classic | 1 | Opponent: Claudia Taylor AA | Judge: Javier Navarette 1ac- Kant v5 |
| Longhorn Classic | 4 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: Sreyaash Das 1ac- kant v6 |
| Longhorn Classic | 6 | Opponent: Plano West VV | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1ac- kant v6 |
| Longhorn Classic | Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Spencer Orlowski Nikhil Ajjarapu 1ac- Kant v7 |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Diana Alvarez 1ac- Ethics of Care |
| Loyola | 4 | Opponent: Peninsula CS | Judge: Nathan Russell 1ac- Ethics of Care |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Honor VD | Judge: Donny Peters 1ac- Evergreening |
| Palm Classic | 2 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Lauren Woodall 1ac- kant v9 |
| Palm Classic | 4 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Shahina Chatur 1ac - Virillio |
| Palm Classic | 6 | Opponent: Sidwell SW | Judge: Johnathan Meza 1ac - Virillio v2 |
| Palm Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Harket RT | Judge: Shahina Chatur, Jacob Nails, Lauren Woodall 1ac - Kant v10 |
| Pennbury | Octas | Opponent: Hawken EB | Judge: Courtney Burke, Kumail Zaidi, and Macharia Samuel 1ac- Lay v2 |
| Pennsbury | 2 | Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Isaac Stiepleman 1ac- Not Kant! |
| Pennsbury | 3 | Opponent: Fremont AK | Judge: Steven Sparling 1ac- lay |
| Pennsbury | 5 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Nichola Simila 1ac- Not Kant v2 |
| Strake | 1 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Joey Georges 1ac- Kant |
| Strake | 4 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Chris Castillo 1ac- kant v2 |
| Strake | 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol SD | Judge: Angela Zhong 1ac- Kant v3 |
| UH Cougar Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Strake EP | Judge: Tyler Gamble, Vishal Sivamani, Holden Bukowsky 1ac- kant v7 (with OST) |
| UH Cougar Classic | Quarters | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Joseph Georges, Tyler Gamble 1ac- Kant v8 (w OST) |
| UH Cougar Classic | 2 | Opponent: Stephen F Austin EN | Judge: Dylan Jones 1ac- Kant v4 (with OST and no UV) |
| UH Cougar Classic | 3 | Opponent: Newman Smith SJ | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn 1ac- Kant v5 (w OST) |
| UH Cougar Classic | 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Javier Navarette 1ac- kant v6 (with afc) |
| h | 9 | Opponent: k | Judge: v e |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0-Contact and NavigationTournament: h | Round: 9 | Opponent: k | Judge: v 1-Generics | 11/26/21 |
1-Broken InterpsTournament: h | Round: 9 | Opponent: k | Judge: v Interpretation: The negative must defend the same actor the affirmative advocacy uses- to clarify you must defend the member nations of the World Trade Organization enacting your advocacy Interpretation: The Negative must specify and separately delineate a standard text in the 1NC. A: Interpretation – If the negative debater reads an alternative or counter-plan in the 1N, they must spec the status of the alternative or counter-plan in that speech. Interpretation: Neither debater may read contradictory framing mechanisms Interp – Debaters must send the text of their interpretations to the judge and opponent prior to the reading of the shell. Interpretation - Debaters must number cards from the same author A: Interp – Debaters must check all theoretical violations in cross-ex. To clarify, they must propose their interpretation and ask if I will comply or conflict. | 11/26/21 |
1-K-BlindnessTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Johnathan Hsu Anti-ethics repsThe use of blindness discourse is problematic – it perpetuates ableism and the idea that blindness implies moral inferiority.Treiman: Treiman 11 Shelley Tremain (University of Toronto, Social Justice Education). "Ableist language and philosophical associations." 2011. | 10/17/21 |
1-ROB-TTTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Spencer Orlowski Nikhil Ajjarapu
6. the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it’s the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it. | 12/23/21 |
JF-AC-KantTournament: Strake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Joey Georges 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power c) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.5~ Is/ought gap- experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~4~ Resource disparity – a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required which o/w accessibility.~5~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~6~ Other frameworks collapse – theories prescribe necessary actions based on objectively good ends, but those ends require something unconditionally good to serve as a condition of their goodness. Inclinations are insufficient because they are liable to change, whereas the rational nature of humanity is unconditionally valuable. Thus, obligations sourced in extrinsically good objects presuppose the goodness of a rational will to confer value upon them.1AC – ContentionI affirm; Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulle VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary.Benjamin Segobaetso 2018, Project Officer at United Nations Association in Canada "Ethical Implications of the Colonization, Privatization and Commercialization of Outer Space." https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/38318/1/Benjamin_Segobaetso_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yROoOf_np9HL97WmBB-xDUGSZnQrRPbvs2Gmo6V5NlyEFBoSLWxQFuV0 Dulles VN 4~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent – there could be other agents there, and it can't be deemed an agents property lest agents have a rational conception of it. C) The International Institute of Space Law provesSean Blair 2011 is a space journalist and is currently working for the European Space Agency, 08-01-2011, "Space property: who owns it?," BBC Science Focus Magazine, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/space-property-who-owns-it/span/ Dulles VN 5~ Libertarianism turns don't apply:A~ Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round.3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.4~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me | 12/18/21 |
JF-AC-Kant v02Tournament: Strake | Round: 4 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Chris Castillo | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v03Tournament: Strake | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol SD | Judge: Angela Zhong 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power c) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.5~ Is/ought gap- experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~4~ Externalism fails: no reason why we ought to care about higher order because they can just say screw it and not follow that order which takes out consequences and kritiks because we don't care about them.~5~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~6~ Also, even if ideal-theory is bad, the alternatives are far worse because they don't rely on fixed principles and devolve into relativism at a particular space and time—you can't measure something with a ruler constantly changing length, which means we need a standard to hold people to.1AC – ContentionI affirm; Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined. I'm determined to affirm, vote for me. To affirm means to express agreement . I've expressed agreement so I've met my burden.1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulle VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent – there could be other agents there, and it can't be deemed an agents property lest agents have a rational conception of it. C) The International Institute of Space Law provesSean Blair 2011 is a space journalist and is currently working for the European Space Agency, 08-01-2011, "Space property: who owns it?," BBC Science Focus Magazine, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/space-property-who-owns-it/span/ Dulles VN 4~ Libertarianism turns don't apply:A~ Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN 1AC – DefinitionsOuter spaceLexico. Oxford Dictionary. Outer Space. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/outer_space Private entitiesLaw Insider. Private entity definition. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-entity 1AC – Underview~1~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined.2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round c) Key to compensate for the structural skewShah 19 ~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.3~ Affirm if I win a Counterinterp–A~ Time skew – 6-minute 2NR to 4-minute 1AR means they're structurally advantaged – there's not enough time to win substance and theory which outweighs on quantifiabilityB~ Sandbagging – Negatives control the direction of the debate because they determine what the 1AR and 2AR has to go for – giving us RVIs grants us some leeway which is key4~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me5~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution – the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it. | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v04Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Stephen F Austin EN | Judge: Dylan Jones
That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:
Since we value our ends, to ensure them, we must universalize them: Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer –
2 Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims. 3 Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary. 5 Libertarianism turns don’t apply: 1AC - Plan | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v05Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Newman Smith SJ | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn 1AC – Framing~LONG~The starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power2~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~4~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.~5~ Practical identities – we set ends based on practical identities like student or debater. However, human identity – or agency – is the source of practical identity, since it's necessary to choose which roles to take on. Impacts: A~ Justifies valuing humanity as an end – we find our lives worth living under our practical identities and activities, but that means we must value agency as the source of that value. B~ Hijacks the role of the judge – judge is a practical identity, which requires first valuing human identity.1AC – Contention1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulles VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent –it can't be deemed an agents property unless agents have a rational conception of it.1AC – Underview1~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging and because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined.1AC - PlanText – Member nations of the Outer Space Treaty ought to rule that appropriation of outer space by private actors is unjust by explicitly applying Article II of the Outer Space Treaty to private actors.To Clarify – this is a whole resolution Affirmative that's defends implementation through the Outer Space Treaty.1AC – AdvantageAdvantage 1 is the OST:Vagueness in the OST that reflect democratized advances in Space cause ambiguity concerns – risks rendering the OST extinct.CFR 17 10-10-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty's Midlife Funk" https://www.cfr.org/blog/outer-space-treatys-midlife-funk (Council of Foreign Relations)Elmer Legal Ambiguity collapses OST Credibility – results in a space free-for-all – clarification to prevent appropriation by Private Actors is key to maintain relevance.Davis 18 Malcolm Davis .16 Jul 2018. Avoiding a free-for-all: the Outer Space Treaty revisited. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/avoiding-a-free-for-all-the-outer-space-treaty-revisited/ ~Malcolm Davis is a senior analyst at ASPI. Edited image courtesy of the European Space Agency~ CVHS SR Loopholes that allow Commercial Appropriation are weaponized to undermine Article II of the OST.Stockwell 20 Samuel Stockwell 7-20-2020 "Legal 'Black Holes' in Outer Space: The Regulation of Private Space Companies" https://www.e-ir.info/2020/07/20/legal-black-holes-in-outer-space-the-regulation-of-private-space-companies/ (Writer at E-IR)Elmer Credible OST solves Space War.Johnson 17 Christopher Johnson 1-23-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty at 50" , http://thespacereview.com/article/3155/1 (graduate of Leiden University's International Institute of Air and Space Law and the International Space University)Elmer Space War cause Nuclear War.Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v06Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Javier Navarette 1AC – Framing~LONG~The starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power2~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ What the neg reads doesn't prove the resolution false but challenges an assumption of it. Statements which make assumptions like the resolution should be read as a tacit conditional which is an if p then q statement. For all conditionals, if the antecedent is false, then the conditional as a whole is true.~4~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.~5~ Other frameworks collapse – theories prescribe necessary actions based on objectively good ends, but those ends require something unconditionally good to serve as a condition of their goodness. Inclinations are insufficient because they are liable to change, whereas the rational nature of humanity is unconditionally valuable. Thus, obligations sourced in extrinsically good objects presuppose the goodness of a rational will to confer value upon them.~6~ Practical identities – we set ends based on practical identities like student or debater. However, human identity – or agency – is the source of practical identity, since it's necessary to choose which roles to take on. Impacts: A~ Justifies valuing humanity as an end – we find our lives worth living under our practical identities and activities, but that means we must value agency as the source of that value. B~ Hijacks the role of the judge – judge is a practical identity, which requires first valuing human identity.~7~ Resource disparity – a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required which o/w accessibility.1AC – ContentionI affirm; Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulles VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary.Benjamin Segobaetso 2018, Project Officer at United Nations Association in Canada "Ethical Implications of the Colonization, Privatization and Commercialization of Outer Space." https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/38318/1/Benjamin_Segobaetso_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yROoOf_np9HL97WmBB-xDUGSZnQrRPbvs2Gmo6V5NlyEFBoSLWxQFuV0 Dulles VN 4~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent –it can't be deemed an agents property unless agents have a rational conception of it.5~ Libertarianism turns don't apply:A~ Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN 1AC – Underview1~ aff theory is legit a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging and because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance. Competing interps on aff shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined.2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round c) its key to compensate the structural skewShah 19 ~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.4~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me ~d~ Lack of offense means it's ok to do something, but it's never okay to do something which is prohibited which means that the neg has to win offense.~5~ Interpretation: The negative must concede the affirmative framework, if it is normatively justified, prescriptive, and disclosed 25 minutes before roundViolation: It's preemptiveStandards -Planks solve their offense – prevents any auto affirm frameworks and allows for clash on the advantage through the impact calc section, disclosure allows for research on our specific phil which creates phil education.1~ Time skew- Winning the negative framework moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense and forces a 1AR restart against a 7 min 1NC – that outweighs ~a~ Quantifiability and reversibility – I can't get back time lost and it's the only way to measure abuse.2~Prep skew- We can't predict every single negative framework before round but they know the resolution coming into round which makes pre-tournament prep impossible. Especially true since there are millions of K's and NC's that could negate - Prep skew outweighs ~a~ Sequencing- It's a perquisite engaging in-round since you need prep to debate ~b~ Engagement- It ruins the quality and depth of discussions that make debate rounds educational.~6~ My offense affirms under truth testing, but prefer a comparative worlds paradigm.~A~ I defend an on-balance interpretation of the resolution – not an absolute rule. NSDA rules prove – the aff only has the burden of general principle – I should not have to prove I'm optimal:Nelson 08 Adam Nelson (Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the Harker School) "Towards a Comprehensive Theory of LD" The Lincoln-Douglas Debate Theory Journal April 15th 2008 http://ldtheoryjournal.blogspot.com/2008/04/towards-comprehensive-theory-of-ld-adam.html *brackets for gendered language ~B~ Reciprocity—truth testing gives the neg infinite NIB's because they can prove morality doesn't exist, it's inaccessible, or read burdens. That's unfair because ~1~ they can win on them but I can't and ~2~ screws the 1AR over since its so short and there are a bunch of hoops I have to jump through. Proving the desirability of a competitive advocacy solves since they share the same assumptions as the AC. | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v10Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Harket RT | Judge: Shahina Chatur, Jacob Nails, Lauren Woodall 1AC – FrameworkI Value justice since the resolution is question of if something is unjust or notEthics must begin a priori, or prior to experiencing the world – An Evil demon deceiving us or the inability to know others' experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since other people could say they don't experience the same.That mandates practical reason as the starting point of morality.1~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational or use reason" demands a reason to justify it and answer the question. Proving its inescapability.2~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.4~ Inescapability – Every agent intrinsically values practical reason when they go about setting and pursuing an end as we must understand what that action looks like through our rational ability.This means we must universalize maxims – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action in all instances, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics must also apply to all universally.3~ Anything else justifies that someone could impede your ability to exercise your will in the first place, restricting your ability to act. An action is only deemed moral if everybody can universally do it and deem it good.Engstrom, Stephen ~"Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge. University of Pittsburgh, ND~ Thus, the Value Criterion is respecting a system of inner and outer freedomPrefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands ~E~ Since it requires evaluating end-states we can't know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good~3~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.~4~ Freedom is a prereq – In order to live any life worth living we must be free to set and pursue our own ends free from coercion of others. Means coercion o/w your arguments.~5~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family1AC – ContentionI affirm; the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulles VN 2~ Dictionary.com defines appropriation asthe act of appropriating or taking possession of something, often without permission or consent. Proving that any act of appropriation is intrinsically coercive and should be rejected.3~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary.Benjamin Segobaetso 2018, Project Officer at United Nations Association in Canada "Ethical Implications of the Colonization, Privatization and Commercialization of Outer Space." https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/38318/1/Benjamin_Segobaetso_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yROoOf_np9HL97WmBB-xDUGSZnQrRPbvs2Gmo6V5NlyEFBoSLWxQFuV0 Dulles VN 4~ Libertarianism turns don't apply: Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN AdvantageThe Advantage is Lunar Heritage:Global Moon Rush by private actors is coming now.Sample 19 Ian Sample 7-19-2019 "Apollo 11 site should be granted heritage status, says space agency boss" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/19/apollo-11-site-heritage-status-space-agency-moon (PhD at Queens Mary College)Elmer Corporate development, tourism, and looting will destroy scientifically rich Tranquility base artifacts.Fessl 19 Sophie Fessl 7-10-2019 "Should the Moon Landing Site Be a National Historic Landmark?" https://daily.jstor.org/should-the-moon-landing-site-be-a-national-historic-landmark/ (PhD King's College London, BA Oxford)Elmer Private entities are a unique threat—-universal rules key.Private Key Card – AT: Alt Causes AND Heritage Sites are critical for science research around Dust.OSTP 18 Office of Science and Technology Policy March 2018 "PROTECTING and PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES and ARTIFACTS" (The Office of Science and Technology Policy is a department of the United States government, part of the Executive Office of the President, established by United States Congress on May 11, 1976, with a broad mandate to advise the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs.)Elmer Moon Dust Research key to Moon Basing.Smith 19 Belinda Smith 7-18-2019 "Who protects Apollo sites when no-one owns the Moon?" https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-19/apollo-11-moon-landing-heritage-preservation-outer-space-treaty/11055458 (Strategic Communications Advisor at Department of Education and Training at University of Victoria)Elmer Earth's Atmosphere limits Neutrino Research – only a Moon base solves.Crawford 12, I. A., et al. "Back to the Moon: The scientific rationale for resuming lunar surface exploration." Planetary and Space Science 74.1 (2012): 3-14. (Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Birkbeck College)Elmer Neutrino Research key to Nuclear Detection that deters Proliferation, stopping war – key to determine military usages.Lee 20 Thomas Lee "Can tiny, invisible particles help stop the spread of nuclear weapons?" https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2020/03/can-tiny-invisible-particles-help-stop-the-spread-of-nuclear-weapons/ (Associate Adjunct Professor, Research Scientist Operations and IT Management.)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksPND 16. internally citing Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council of Foreign Relations and former national security adviser to President Carter, Toon and Robock's 2012 study on nuclear winter in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Gareth Evans' International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Report, Congressional EMP studies, studies on nuclear winter by Seth Baum of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, and U.S. and Russian former Defense Secretaries and former heads of nuclear missile forces, brief submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear risks. A/AC.286/NGO/13. 05-03-2016. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/OEWG/2016/Documents/NGO13.pdf Re-cut by Elmer | 2/14/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v7Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake EP | Judge: Tyler Gamble, Vishal Sivamani, Holden Bukowsky 1AC – Framing~LONG~The starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work.2~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.3~ Is/ought gap – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Theoretically Prefer ~a~ Resource disparity – a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required which o/w accessibility. ~b~ Real World Education – Governments operate in consistency to Kantian conceptions of the state. Empirically proven – legitimate states have deontic side constraints like a bill of rights or constitutional courts, but no state is allowed to violate citizens' liberties for the purpose of the greater good~3~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~4~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~5~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~6~ Practical identities – we set ends based on practical identities like student or debater. However, human identity – or agency – is the source of practical identity, since it's necessary to choose which roles to take on. Impacts: A~ Justifies valuing humanity as an end – we find our lives worth living under our practical identities and activities, but that means we must value agency as the source of that value. B~ Hijacks the role of the judge – judge is a practical identity, which requires first valuing human identity.1AC – Contention1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulles VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary.Benjamin Segobaetso 2018, Project Officer at United Nations Association in Canada "Ethical Implications of the Colonization, Privatization and Commercialization of Outer Space." https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/38318/1/Benjamin_Segobaetso_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yROoOf_np9HL97WmBB-xDUGSZnQrRPbvs2Gmo6V5NlyEFBoSLWxQFuV0 Dulles VN 4~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent –it can't be deemed an agents property unless agents have a rational conception of it.5~ Libertarianism turns don't apply:A~ Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN 1AC - PlanText – Member nations of the Outer Space Treaty ought to rule that appropriation of outer space by private actors is unjust by explicitly applying Article II of the Outer Space Treaty to private actors.To Clarify – this is a whole resolution Affirmative that's defends implementation through the Outer Space Treaty.1AC – AdvantageAdvantage 1 is the OST:Vagueness in the OST that reflect democratized advances in Space cause ambiguity concerns – risks rendering the OST extinct.CFR 17 10-10-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty's Midlife Funk" https://www.cfr.org/blog/outer-space-treatys-midlife-funk (Council of Foreign Relations)Elmer Credible OST solves Space War.Johnson 17 Christopher Johnson 1-23-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty at 50" , http://thespacereview.com/article/3155/1 (graduate of Leiden University's International Institute of Air and Space Law and the International Space University)Elmer Space War cause Nuclear War.Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.3~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution~a~ – the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.4~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me | 1/16/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v8Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Joseph Georges, Tyler Gamble SPIKES ON BOTTOM1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Indexicals: Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power.2~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.3~ Is/ought gap- experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.That justifies a universal moral law –1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. Explosion: If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resource Disparities – A focus on statistics and evidence rewards the debaters with the most preround prep which just increases the disparity between large schools with huge evidence files and lone wolves without coaches. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any preround prep as all that is need is analytical arguments.~3~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~4~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~5~ Practical identities – we set ends based on practical identities like student or debater. However, human identity – or agency – is the source of practical identity, since it's necessary to choose which roles to take on. Impacts: A~ Justifies valuing humanity as an end – we find our lives worth living under our practical identities and activities, but that means we must value agency as the source of that value. B~ Hijacks the role of the judge – judge is a practical identity, which requires first valuing human identity.~6~ Other frameworks collapse – theories prescribe necessary actions based on objectively good ends, but those ends require something unconditionally good to serve as a condition of their goodness. Inclinations are insufficient because they are liable to change, whereas the rational nature of humanity is unconditionally valuable. Thus, obligations sourced in extrinsically good objects presuppose the goodness of a rational will to confer value upon them.1AC – ContentionI affirm; Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. To clarify, I'm willing to specify anything further in CX. Ben asked me not to defend implementation so i won't unless a different framework is presented in round that makes that conceptually incoherentNow affirm:1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulle VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent – there could be other agents there, and it can't be deemed an agents property lest agents have a rational conception of it. C) The International Institute of Space Law provesSean Blair 2011 is a space journalist and is currently working for the European Space Agency, 08-01-2011, "Space property: who owns it?," BBC Science Focus Magazine, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/space-property-who-owns-it/span/ Dulles VN 4~ Libertarianism turns don't apply:A~ Privatization of space inherently relies on an anti-libertarian state-based modelShammas and Holen 19 ~(Victor L. Oslo Metropolitan University, Tomas B. Independent scholar) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," Palgrave Communications, 1-29-19, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ TDI recut Dulles VN 1AC – DefinitionsAppropriation of outer spaceTIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, '13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ Outer spaceLexico. Oxford Dictionary. Outer Space. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/outer_space Private entitiesLaw Insider. Private entity definition. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-entity 1AC – AdvantageAdvantage 1 is the OST:Vagueness in the OST that reflect democratized advances in Space cause ambiguity concerns – risks rendering the OST extinct.CFR 17 10-10-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty's Midlife Funk" https://www.cfr.org/blog/outer-space-treatys-midlife-funk (Council of Foreign Relations)Elmer Credible OST solves Space War.Johnson 17 Christopher Johnson 1-23-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty at 50" , http://thespacereview.com/article/3155/1 (graduate of Leiden University's International Institute of Air and Space Law and the International Space University)Elmer Space War cause Nuclear War.Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked 1AC – Underview1~ Use reasonability on neg theory – ~a~ Competing interps moots 6 mins of AC offense creating a 7-13 time skew which outweighs minimal aff abuse. ~b~ Offense-defense disincentivizes substantive education by shifting the round from the AC to a norm so their model prioritizes diminishing marginal skews over substance. That outweighs – the end goal of theory is better substantive debates. ~c~ Binary interps make it possible for the reactive neg to always read theory, so the aff needs reasonability to protect their core ground.~2~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined. | 1/17/22 |
JF-AC-Kant v9Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Lauren Woodall Lay Kant1AC – FrameworkI Value justice since the resolution is question of if something is unjust or notEthics must begin a priori, or prior to experiencing the world – An Evil demon deceiving us or the inability to know others' experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since other people could say they don't experience the same.That mandates practical reason as the starting point of morality.1~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational or use reason" demands a reason to justify it and answer the question. Proving its inescapability.2~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.4~ Inescapability – Every agent intrinsically values practical reason when they go about setting and pursuing an end as we must understand what that action looks like through our rational ability.This means we must universalize maxims – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action in all instances, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics must also apply to all universally.3~ Anything else justifies that someone could impede your ability to exercise your will in the first place, restricting your ability to act. An action is only deemed moral if everybody can universally do it and deem it good.Engstrom, Stephen ~"Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge. University of Pittsburgh, ND~ Thus, the Value Criterion is respecting a system of inner and outer freedomPrefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.~4~ Freedom is a prereq – In order to live any life worth living we must be free to set and pursue our own ends free from coercion of others. Means coercion o/w your arguments.1AC – ContentionI affirm; the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.1~ Out of the possibility of extraterrestrial reasoners, we have an obligation to respect their habitats and not interfere through exploration.Brian Patrick Green 2014, Santa Clara University, "Ethical Approaches to Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Comparing Kant, Mill, and Aristotle," Scholar Commons, https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/markkula/5/ Dulles VN 2~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf Dulles VN 3~ Dictionary.com defines appropriation asthe act of appropriating or taking possession of something, often without permission or consent. Proving that any act of appropriation is intrinsically coercive and should be rejected.4~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - a). Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth b). Assumes all agents have access to the resources to fund a space trip, and is thus exclusionary.Benjamin Segobaetso 2018, Project Officer at United Nations Association in Canada "Ethical Implications of the Colonization, Privatization and Commercialization of Outer Space." https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/38318/1/Benjamin_Segobaetso_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yROoOf_np9HL97WmBB-xDUGSZnQrRPbvs2Gmo6V5NlyEFBoSLWxQFuV0 Dulles VN 5~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent –it can't be deemed an agents property unless agents have a rational conception of it. C) The International Institute of Space Law provesSean Blair 2011 is a space journalist and is currently working for the European Space Agency, 08-01-2011, "Space property: who owns it?," BBC Science Focus Magazine, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/space-property-who-owns-it/span/ Dulles VN | 2/12/22 |
JF-AC-LayTournament: Pennsbury | Round: 3 | Opponent: Fremont AK | Judge: Steven Sparling ACI affirm the resolution Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjustThe value is morality since ought indicates a moral obligationThe value criterion is maximizing expected well-being which means causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.2 reasons for this:Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.For some definitions:Appropriation is claiming permanent exclusive ownership – expert opinion and common usageHardenstein 16 ~Taylor Stanton Hardenstein, Executive Editor of the Mississippi Law Journal and J.D. Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2016, "In Space, No One Can Hear You Contest Jurisdiction: Establishing Criminal Jurisdiction of the Outer Space Colonies Tomorrow," JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003andcontext=jalc~~/Kankee Contention 1: MiscalcPrivate appropriation leads to mega-constellations of satellites which ensure unmanageable space debris and collisionsBoley and Byers 21 ~Aaron C., Department of Physics and Astronomy @ The University of British Columbia*, and Michael, Department of Political Science @ The University of British Columbia; Published: 20 May 2021; Scientific Reports; "Satellite mega-constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth," https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7~~ brett Overcrowding in space leads to collisions and space debris which lead to war by miscalculationDockrill 16 ~Peter; 2016; Award-winning science and technology journalist. "Space Junk Accidents Could Trigger Armed Conflict, Study Finds." https://www.sciencealert.com/space-junk-accidents-could-trigger-armed-conflict-expert-warns~~ brett Nuke war causes a massive, near infinite amount of suffering so any chance at preventing it must come first AND it outweighs other existential risksChecked Contention 2: Space MiningPrivate appropriation in the form of space mining is on the rise-New investments are coming and companies are launching because of new economic incentivesTosar 20 ~(Borja Tosar, reporter) "Asteroid Mining: A New Space Race," OpenMind BBVA, May 18, 2020, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/asteroid-mining-a-new-space-race/~~ TDI The best science proves that space mining causes satellite-dust collisionsScoles 15 ~(Sarah Scoles, freelance science writer, contributor at Wired and Popular Science, author of the books Making Contact and They Are Already Here) "Dust from asteroid mining spells danger for satellites," New Scientist, May 27, 2015, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630235-100-dust-from-asteroid-mining-spells-danger-for-satellites/~~ TDI Space dust collisions destroy satellites and their debris exponentially spiralsIntagliata 17 ~(Christopher Intagliata, MA Journalism from NYU, Editor for NPRs All Things Considered, Reporter/Host for Scientific American's 60 Second Science) "The Sneaky Danger of Space Dust," Scientific American, May 11, 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-sneaky-danger-of-space-dust/~~ TDI This hurts our ability to combat global warming since Earth observation satellites are key to adapt to climate changeAlonso 18 ~(Elisa Jiménez Alonso, communications consultant with Acclimatise, climate resilience organization) "Earth Observation of Increasing Importance for Climate Change Adaptation," Acclimatise, May 2, 2018, https://www.acclimatise.uk.com/2018/05/02/earth-observation-of-increasing-importance-for-climate-change-adaptation/~~ TDI Warming causes massive suffering and destruction to the earth to the level of extinctionKlein 14~(Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics, member of the board of directors of 350.org), This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14~ Warming reinforces Inequalities, and always hurts poor and minority populations.LA Times 19 9-15-2019 "Editorial: Wealthy Countries are Responsible for Climate Change, but it's the poor who will suffer most" https://archive.is/aVCFf~~#selection-1989.1-2016.0 Elmer Space mining hurts the economy, especially for those in third world countries in AfricaOni 19 ~(David, a space industry and technology analyst at Space in Africa. He's a graduate of Mining Engineering from the Federal University of Technology Akure.) "The Effect of Asteroid Mining on Mining Activities in Africa," Africa News, 9/24/19, https://africanews.space/the-effect-of-asteroid-mining-on-mining-activities-in-africa/~~ | 2/5/22 |
JF-AC-Lay v2Tournament: Pennbury | Round: Octas | Opponent: Hawken EB | Judge: Courtney Burke, Kumail Zaidi, and Macharia Samuel ACI affirm the resolution Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjustThe value is morality since ought indicates a moral obligationThe value criterion is maximizing expected well-being which means causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.2 reasons for this:Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.Extinction is bad and outweighs~A~ It's IrreversibleMacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ ~B~ – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible~C~ – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities~D~ – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalFor some definitions:Appropriation is claiming permanent exclusive ownership – expert opinion and common usageHardenstein 16 ~Taylor Stanton Hardenstein, Executive Editor of the Mississippi Law Journal and J.D. Candidate at the University of Mississippi School of Law, 2016, "In Space, No One Can Hear You Contest Jurisdiction: Establishing Criminal Jurisdiction of the Outer Space Colonies Tomorrow," JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003andcontext=jalc~~/Kankee Contention 1: MiscalcPrivate appropriation leads to mega-constellations of satellites which ensure unmanageable space debris and collisionsBoley and Byers 21 ~Aaron C., Department of Physics and Astronomy @ The University of British Columbia*, and Michael, Department of Political Science @ The University of British Columbia; Published: 20 May 2021; Scientific Reports; "Satellite mega-constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth," https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7~~ brett Overcrowding in space leads to collisions and space debris which lead to war by miscalculationDockrill 16 ~Peter; 2016; Award-winning science and technology journalist. "Space Junk Accidents Could Trigger Armed Conflict, Study Finds." https://www.sciencealert.com/space-junk-accidents-could-trigger-armed-conflict-expert-warns~~ brett Nuke war causes a massive, near infinite amount of suffering so any chance at preventing it must come first AND it outweighs other existential risksChecked Contention 2: Space MiningPrivate appropriation in the form of space mining is on the rise-New investments are coming and companies are launching because of new economic incentivesTosar 20 ~(Borja Tosar, reporter) "Asteroid Mining: A New Space Race," OpenMind BBVA, May 18, 2020, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/asteroid-mining-a-new-space-race/~~ TDI The best science proves that space mining causes satellite-dust collisionsScoles 15 ~(Sarah Scoles, freelance science writer, contributor at Wired and Popular Science, author of the books Making Contact and They Are Already Here) "Dust from asteroid mining spells danger for satellites," New Scientist, May 27, 2015, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630235-100-dust-from-asteroid-mining-spells-danger-for-satellites/~~ TDI Space dust collisions destroy satellites and their debris exponentially spiralsIntagliata 17 ~(Christopher Intagliata, MA Journalism from NYU, Editor for NPRs All Things Considered, Reporter/Host for Scientific American's 60 Second Science) "The Sneaky Danger of Space Dust," Scientific American, May 11, 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-sneaky-danger-of-space-dust/~~ TDI This hurts our ability to combat global warming since Earth observation satellites are key to adapt to climate changeAlonso 18 ~(Elisa Jiménez Alonso, communications consultant with Acclimatise, climate resilience organization) "Earth Observation of Increasing Importance for Climate Change Adaptation," Acclimatise, May 2, 2018, https://www.acclimatise.uk.com/2018/05/02/earth-observation-of-increasing-importance-for-climate-change-adaptation/~~ TDI Warming causes massive suffering and destruction to the earth to the level of extinctionKlein 14~(Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics, member of the board of directors of 350.org), This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14~ Warming reinforces Inequalities, and always hurts poor and minority populations.LA Times 19 9-15-2019 "Editorial: Wealthy Countries are Responsible for Climate Change, but it's the poor who will suffer most" https://archive.is/aVCFf~~#selection-1989.1-2016.0 Elmer Space mining hurts the economy, especially for those in third world countries in AfricaOni 19 ~(David, a space industry and technology analyst at Space in Africa. He's a graduate of Mining Engineering from the Federal University of Technology Akure.) "The Effect of Asteroid Mining on Mining Activities in Africa," Africa News, 9/24/19, https://africanews.space/the-effect-of-asteroid-mining-on-mining-activities-in-africa/~~ | 2/9/22 |
JF-AC-Not KantTournament: Pennsbury | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Isaac Stiepleman 1AC1AC: AdvocacyI affirm the resolution Resolved: Private appropriation of outer space is unjustFor Enforcement I'll defend Implementing the Public Trust Doctrines in Outer Space which limits Appropriation and ensures Outer Space Development is sustainable.Babcock 19 (, H., 2019. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, OUTER SPACE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS: TIME TO CALL HOME ET. ~online~ Lawreview.syr.edu. Available at: https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/H-Babcock-Article-Final-Document-v2.pdf~~#page=67 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Professor Babcock served as general counsel to the National Audubon Society from 1987-91 and as deputy general counsel and Director of Audubon's Public Lands and Water Program from 1981-87. Previously, she was a partner with Blum, Nash and Railsback, where she focused on energy and environmental issues, and an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae where she represented utilities in the nuclear licensing process. From 1977-79, she served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and Minerals in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Professor Babcock has taught environmental and natural resources law as a visiting professor at Pace University Law School and as an adjunct at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Catholic University, and Antioch law schools. Professor Babcock was a member of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association, and served on the Clinton-Gore Transition Team.)-rahulpenu 1AC: FramingI Value Morality since the resolution asks us about a moral obligationThus, the value criterion is maximizing expected wellbeing or utilitarianismIndependently, pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 1~ 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.2~ Extinction first –1 – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible2 – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities3 – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical4 – Moral uncertainty – if we're unsure about which interpretation of the world is true – we ought to preserve the world to keep debating about it1AC: Sustainable Space AdvantageThe Advantage is Sustainable Space Development:Implementing the PTD for Private Appropriation results in a legally binding regime that curbs unsustainable development – ensures closing of legal loopholes.Babcock 19 (, H., 2019. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, OUTER SPACE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS: TIME TO CALL HOME ET. ~online~ Lawreview.syr.edu. Available at: https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/H-Babcock-Article-Final-Document-v2.pdf~~#page=67 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Professor Babcock served as general counsel to the National Audubon Society from 1987-91 and as deputy general counsel and Director of Audubon's Public Lands and Water Program from 1981-87. Previously, she was a partner with Blum, Nash and Railsback, where she focused on energy and environmental issues, and an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae where she represented utilities in the nuclear licensing process. From 1977-79, she served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and Minerals in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Professor Babcock has taught environmental and natural resources law as a visiting professor at Pace University Law School and as an adjunct at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Catholic University, and Antioch law schools. Professor Babcock was a member of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association, and served on the Clinton-Gore Transition Team.)-rahulpenu Sustainable development embedded in law solves security, debris, traffic and SSA.Aganaba-Jeanty 16 (, T., 2016. Space Sustainability and the Freedom of Outer Space. ~online~ Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777622.2016.1148463 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Timiebi is an assistant professor of Space and Society, in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society, an affiliate faculty with the Interplanetary Initiative, a senior global futures scientist with the Global Futures Lab, and holds a courtesy appointment at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, all at Arizona State University. Timiebi was a post-doctoral fellow and is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) based in Waterloo, Ontario Canada where she focused on environmental and space governance. Timiebi was Executive Director of the World Space Week Association coordinating the global response to the UN 1999 declaration that World Space Week should be celebrated Oct 4-10 annually. She is currently on the Advisory Board for the Space Generation Advisory Council supporting the UN Programme on Space Applications. She is also on the Science Advisory Board of World View Enterprises and the SETI Institute. - pp. 10-13.)-rahulpenu AND Congestion creates rivalrous orbits.Fabian 19 (Christopher; January 2019; B.S. from the United States Air Force Academy, thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a M.S. from the University of North Dakota, approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee and in coordination with Dr. Michael Dodge, David Kugler, and Brian Urlacher; University of North Dakota Scholarly Commons, "A Neoclassical Realist's Analysis Of Sino-U.S. Space Policy," https://commons.und.edu/theses/2455/) That triggers missile radars.Hoots 15 (Felix; Fall 2015; Distinguished Engineer in the System Analysis and Simulation Subdivision, Ph.D. in Mathematics from Auburn University, M.S. in Mathematics from Tennessee Tech University; Crosslink, "Keeping Track: Space Surveillance for Operational Support," https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Crosslink20Fall20201520V16N120.pdf) Nuclear war.Rogoway 15 (Tyler; November 12; Defense Journalist and Editor of Time Inc's The War Zone; Jalopnik, "These Are The Doomsday Satellites That Detected The Explosion Of Metrojet 9268," https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/these-are-the-doomsday-satellites-that-detected-the-exp-1737434876) Unchecked Commercial Appropriation causes Space Conflicts.Perez 21 Veronica Delgado-Perez. 12/14/21. Argument | The Commercialization of Space Risks Launching a Militarized Space Race. https://www.theintlscholar.com/periodical/12/14/2020/analysis-commercialization-space-risk-international-law-military-space-race ~Veronica Delgado-Perez is a Staff Writer at The International Scholar.~ CVHS SR Space War cause Nuclear War.Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked | 2/5/22 |
JF-AC-VirillioTournament: Palm Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Shahina Chatur 1ACPart 1Phenomenological experiences only access value from speed: there is a finite amount of content that can be cohered in a singular moment. For example, when you walk past a tree, you can admire the leaves, but if you drive by it, you only see a blur.The world is defined by speed-space: how fast or how slow an action takes place or a claim is made determines its significance because we construct life around efficiency. Previously, events that were short-lived were viewed negatively; now, the faster we can move on to our next task, the better.The subject's relationship to speed is necessarily relative: every interaction between ethical actors is defined by the rate at which it is perceived. Rigorous contestation and conversation birth new ideas and empathy but accelerated experiences sever the agent from the self, creating empty subjects.The creation of new ideas is always accepted and believed under rampant accelerationism – so slowing down is key to testing those claims under time-space.Doel ~Marcus; Professor of Human Geography at Swansea University, UK; "Virilio Dictionary" compiled by John Armitage; section titled "Speed-Space"; 2013; LCA-BP~ The dromosphere, the world defined by accelerationism, warps bodies and ideas into their compressed form to be exploited for global elites. The faster that we innovate, the faster the likelihood for a catastrophic accident increases. By slowing down, we can interrogate existing power structures and halt the progress of fatal accidents. Thus, the standard and the ROTB is to vote for the debater who best dwells in slow-time: rampant acceleration creates violence against the most vulnerable.Burk ~Drew; "The Virilio Dictionary"; compiled by John Armitage; section titled "Dromosphere"; studied philosophy and religious and political anthropology as an Ambassadorial Scholar at L'Institut D'Etudes Politiques in Aix-en-Provence, France and completed his graduate work at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland where he is currently a Visiting Scholar; 2013; LCA-BP~ Prefer Additionally:~1~ Deceleration is key in educational spaces: The ability to compare the relative merits of various positions is constitutive of debate, which necessitates thoughtful deliberation to interrogate truth claims.Wood ~Phil, Senior Lecturer and Teaching Fellow at the University of Leicester who focuses on education, "Should education policy have a speed limit? Slowing down the process of change", 4-11-13, Considered, http://www.consider-ed.org.uk/should-education-policy-have-a-speed-limit/~~ I affirm; The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.ContentionA re-emphasis on earth is an ethical imperative: by focusing on what we already have on our planet, we can abandon the accelerationist drive to produce at unprecedented rates.Virilio ~Paul; The Information Bomb; 2005 this translation, 1998 og french edition; French cultural theorist, aesthetic philosopher, and phenomenologist~ Conventional conceptions of geospatial politics are a massive failure – the advent of privatized industrial superpowers means we need to re-conceptualize power within the ultracity. The ultracity is a disembodied conceptual framework that understands the decentralized, extra-planetary perspective necessary to combat material consequences of capitalism.Davies ~Hugh; Virilio Dictionary; Senior Lecturer in Creative Art and Media at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.; 2013~ The accelerationists obsession with space appropriation reflects an insidious desire to export capitalist accumulation to the cosmos — this supercharges existing planetary destruction and shoves marginalized populations to the sidelines while the wealthy elite escape the chaos they've createdShammas and Holen ~Victor and Tomas; 2019; "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space"; slo Metropolitan University, Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo, Norway. 2 Independent scholar, Oslo, Norway.; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ *edited for clarity, footnotes inserted where they are referenced Contention 2The appropriation of outer space will undoubtedly result in the end of humankind as we know it — information technology is obsessed with future-oriented goals that harm bodies nowVirilio ~Paul; The Information Bomb; 2005 this translation, 1998 og french edition; French cultural theorist, aesthetic philosopher, and phenomenologist~ *edited for gendered lang UV~1~ Use reasonability on neg theory – ~a~ Competing interps moots 6 mins of AC offense creating a 7-13 time skew which outweighs minimal aff abuse. ~b~ Offense-defense disincentivizes substantive education by shifting the round from the AC to a norm so their model prioritizes diminishing marginal skews over substance. That outweighs – the end goal of theory is better substantive debates. ~c~ Binary interps make it possible for the reactive neg to always read theory, so the aff needs reasonability to protect their core ground.~2~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse.~3~ Reject UtilA~ Aggregation fails – Suffering is not additive, can't compare between one migraine and 10 headachesB~ Infinite conceptions of Pleasure and Pain –C~ Pleasure and Pain are infinite – | 2/13/22 |
JF-AC-Virillio v2Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Sidwell SW | Judge: Johnathan Meza 1ACPart 1Phenomenological experiences only access value from speed: there is a finite amount of content that can be cohered in a singular moment. For example, when you walk past a tree, you can admire the leaves, but if you drive by it, you only see a blur.The world is defined by speed-space: how fast or how slow an action takes place or a claim is made determines its significance because we construct life around efficiency. Previously, events that were short-lived were viewed negatively; now, the faster we can move on to our next task, the better.The subject's relationship to speed is necessarily relative: every interaction between ethical actors is defined by the rate at which it is perceived. Rigorous contestation and conversation birth new ideas and empathy but accelerated experiences sever the agent from the self, creating empty subjects.The creation of new ideas is always accepted and believed under rampant accelerationism – so slowing down is key to testing those claims under time-space.Doel ~Marcus; Professor of Human Geography at Swansea University, UK; "Virilio Dictionary" compiled by John Armitage; section titled "Speed-Space"; 2013; LCA-BP~ The dromosphere, the world defined by accelerationism, warps bodies and ideas into their compressed form to be exploited for global elites. The faster that we innovate, the faster the likelihood for a catastrophic accident increases. By slowing down, we can interrogate existing power structures and halt the progress of fatal accidents. Thus, the standard and the Role of the Ballot is to vote for the debater whoe best dwells in slow-time: rampant acceleration creates violence against the most vulnerable.Burk ~Drew; "The Virilio Dictionary"; compiled by John Armitage; section titled "Dromosphere"; studied philosophy and religious and political anthropology as an Ambassadorial Scholar at L'Institut D'Etudes Politiques in Aix-en-Provence, France and completed his graduate work at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland where he is currently a Visiting Scholar; 2013; LCA-BP~ Prefer Additionally:~1~ Deceleration is key in educational spaces: The ability to compare the relative merits of various positions is constitutive of debate, which necessitates thoughtful deliberation to interrogate truth claims.Wood ~Phil, Senior Lecturer and Teaching Fellow at the University of Leicester who focuses on education, "Should education policy have a speed limit? Slowing down the process of change", 4-11-13, Considered, http://www.consider-ed.org.uk/should-education-policy-have-a-speed-limit/~~ I affirm; The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.ContentionA re-emphasis on earth is an ethical imperative: by focusing on what we already have on our planet, we can abandon the accelerationist drive to produce at unprecedented rates.Virilio ~Paul; The Information Bomb; 2005 this translation, 1998 og french edition; French cultural theorist, aesthetic philosopher, and phenomenologist~ The accelerationists obsession with space appropriation reflects an insidious desire to export capitalist accumulation to the cosmos — this supercharges existing planetary destruction and shoves marginalized populations to the sidelines while the wealthy elite escape the chaos they've createdShammas and Holen ~Victor and Tomas; 2019; "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space"; slo Metropolitan University, Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo, Norway. 2 Independent scholar, Oslo, Norway.; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9~~ *edited for clarity, footnotes inserted where they are referenced Contention 2The appropriation of outer space will undoubtedly result in the end of humankind as we know it — information technology is obsessed with future-oriented goals that harm bodies nowVirilio ~Paul; The Information Bomb; 2005 this translation, 1998 og french edition; French cultural theorist, aesthetic philosopher, and phenomenologist~ *edited for gendered lang UV~1~ Use reasonability on neg theory – ~a~ Competing interps moots 6 mins of AC offense creating a 7-13 time skew which outweighs minimal aff abuse. ~b~ Offense-defense disincentivizes substantive education by shifting the round from the AC to a norm so their model prioritizes diminishing marginal skews over substance. That outweighs – the end goal of theory is better substantive debates. ~c~ Binary interps make it possible for the reactive neg to always read theory, so the aff needs reasonability to protect their core ground.~2~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse.3~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round c) its key to compensate the structural skewShah 19 ~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 4~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n. | 2/13/22 |
JF-AC-not kant v2Tournament: Pennsbury | Round: 5 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Nichola Simila 1AC1AC: AdvocacyI affirm the resolution Resolved: Private appropriation of outer space is unjustFor Enforcement I'll defend states Implementing the Public Trust Doctrines in Outer Space which limits Appropriation and ensures Outer Space Development is sustainable.Babcock 19 (, H., 2019. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, OUTER SPACE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS: TIME TO CALL HOME ET. ~online~ Lawreview.syr.edu. Available at: https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/H-Babcock-Article-Final-Document-v2.pdf~~#page=67 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Professor Babcock served as general counsel to the National Audubon Society from 1987-91 and as deputy general counsel and Director of Audubon's Public Lands and Water Program from 1981-87. Previously, she was a partner with Blum, Nash and Railsback, where she focused on energy and environmental issues, and an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae where she represented utilities in the nuclear licensing process. From 1977-79, she served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and Minerals in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Professor Babcock has taught environmental and natural resources law as a visiting professor at Pace University Law School and as an adjunct at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Catholic University, and Antioch law schools. Professor Babcock was a member of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association, and served on the Clinton-Gore Transition Team.)-rahulpenu 1AC: FramingI Value Morality since the resolution asks us about a moral obligationThus, the value criterion is maximizing expected wellbeing or utilitarianismIndependently, pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they're our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actionsMoen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. 1~ 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.~2~ Extinction is bad and outweighs~a~ It's IrreversibleMacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ ~B~ – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible~C~ – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities~D~ – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical1AC: Sustainable Space AdvantageThe Advantage is Sustainable Space Development:Implementing the PTD for Private Appropriation results in a legally binding regime that curbs unsustainable development – ensures closing of legal loopholes.Babcock 19 (, H., 2019. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, OUTER SPACE, AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS: TIME TO CALL HOME ET. ~online~ Lawreview.syr.edu. Available at: https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/H-Babcock-Article-Final-Document-v2.pdf~~#page=67 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Professor Babcock served as general counsel to the National Audubon Society from 1987-91 and as deputy general counsel and Director of Audubon's Public Lands and Water Program from 1981-87. Previously, she was a partner with Blum, Nash and Railsback, where she focused on energy and environmental issues, and an associate at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae where she represented utilities in the nuclear licensing process. From 1977-79, she served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and Minerals in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Professor Babcock has taught environmental and natural resources law as a visiting professor at Pace University Law School and as an adjunct at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Catholic University, and Antioch law schools. Professor Babcock was a member of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law of the American Bar Association, and served on the Clinton-Gore Transition Team.)-rahulpenu Sustainable development embedded in law solves security, debris, traffic and SSA.Aganaba-Jeanty 16 (, T., 2016. Space Sustainability and the Freedom of Outer Space. ~online~ Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777622.2016.1148463 ~Accessed 15 December 2021~ Timiebi is an assistant professor of Space and Society, in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society, an affiliate faculty with the Interplanetary Initiative, a senior global futures scientist with the Global Futures Lab, and holds a courtesy appointment at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, all at Arizona State University. Timiebi was a post-doctoral fellow and is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) based in Waterloo, Ontario Canada where she focused on environmental and space governance. Timiebi was Executive Director of the World Space Week Association coordinating the global response to the UN 1999 declaration that World Space Week should be celebrated Oct 4-10 annually. She is currently on the Advisory Board for the Space Generation Advisory Council supporting the UN Programme on Space Applications. She is also on the Science Advisory Board of World View Enterprises and the SETI Institute. - pp. 10-13.)-rahulpenu AND Congestion creates rivalrous orbits.Fabian 19 (Christopher; January 2019; B.S. from the United States Air Force Academy, thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a M.S. from the University of North Dakota, approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee and in coordination with Dr. Michael Dodge, David Kugler, and Brian Urlacher; University of North Dakota Scholarly Commons, "A Neoclassical Realist's Analysis Of Sino-U.S. Space Policy," https://commons.und.edu/theses/2455/) That triggers missile radars.Hoots 15 (Felix; Fall 2015; Distinguished Engineer in the System Analysis and Simulation Subdivision, Ph.D. in Mathematics from Auburn University, M.S. in Mathematics from Tennessee Tech University; Crosslink, "Keeping Track: Space Surveillance for Operational Support," https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Crosslink20Fall20201520V16N120.pdf) Nuclear war.Rogoway 15 (Tyler; November 12; Defense Journalist and Editor of Time Inc's The War Zone; Jalopnik, "These Are The Doomsday Satellites That Detected The Explosion Of Metrojet 9268," https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/these-are-the-doomsday-satellites-that-detected-the-exp-1737434876) Unchecked Commercial Appropriation causes Space Conflicts.Perez 21 Veronica Delgado-Perez. 12/14/21. Argument | The Commercialization of Space Risks Launching a Militarized Space Race. https://www.theintlscholar.com/periodical/12/14/2020/analysis-commercialization-space-risk-international-law-military-space-race ~Veronica Delgado-Perez is a Staff Writer at The International Scholar.~ CVHS SR Space War cause Nuclear War.Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked 1AC – Underview1~ 1AR theory is legit – anything else means infinite abuse – drop the debater, competing interps, no rvis– 1AR is too short to make up for the time trade-off – no RVIs or 2NR theory and paradigm issues– 6 min 2NR means they can brute force me every time. | 2/5/22 |
ND-AC-BatailleTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Eva Isakovic | 12/11/21 |
ND-AC-KantTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: James Logan RS | Judge: Weronicka Janczuk 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality and justice is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency and reason since you use your reason2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ External World Fallacy- Only internal knowledge can be trusted. Experience is corrupt – we could be dreaming or hallucinating.4~ Constitutivism- Only a priori knowledge exists across all subjects, empirics vary.5~ Is/ought gap- Empirics tell us what is, not what ought to be. Descriptions can't prove ought statements; only internal knowledge can prove oughts.6~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are definitionally independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96-takes out the third point:Terry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~4~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~5~ Strikes prevent workers from being used as a meansLofaso 17 Anne Marie Lofaso, Workers' Rights as Natural Human Rights, 71 U. Miami L. Rev. 565 (2017) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol71/iss3/3 ~Anne Marie Lofaso is Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. In 2010, she was named WVU College of Law Professor of the Year.~ ~6~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ | 11/20/21 |
ND-AC-Kant v02Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola IB | Judge: Derek Ying 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power. To clarify this is indexicals2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. Therefore err aff on risk of offense since anything else means ethics cannot serve it's purpose.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are definitionally independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.~3~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~4~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~5~ Externalism fails: no reason why we ought to care about higher order because they can just say screw it and not follow that order which takes out consequences and kritiks because we don't care about them.1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96-takes out the third point:Terry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~4~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~5~ Strikes prevent workers from being used as a meansLofaso 17 Anne Marie Lofaso, Workers' Rights as Natural Human Rights, 71 U. Miami L. Rev. 565 (2017) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol71/iss3/3 ~Anne Marie Lofaso is Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. In 2010, she was named WVU College of Law Professor of the Year.~ ~6~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round. c) its key to compensate the structural skewShah 19 ~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n4~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolutionthe ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.5~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me6~ Interp: the neg may not contest the aff contention-It's key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD and 2nrs on case turns kill the 2nr due to 6-3 time skew | 2/14/22 |
ND-AC-Kant v03Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Chris Castillo 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. Therefore err aff on risk of offense since anything else means ethics cannot serve it's purpose.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are definitionally independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.~3~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~4~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. 1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined. I'm determined to affirm, vote for me. To affirm means to express agreement . I've expressed agreement so I've met my burden.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96-takes out the third point:Terry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~4~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ 1AC – Underview1~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging and because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined.2~ Use reasonability on neg theory – ~a~ Competing interps moots 6 mins of AC offense creating a 7-13 time skew which outweighs minimal aff abuse. ~b~ Offense-defense disincentivizes substantive education by shifting the round from the AC to a norm so their model prioritizes diminishing marginal skews over substance. That outweighs – the end goal of theory is better substantive debates. ~c~ Binary interps make it possible for the reactive neg to always read theory, so the aff needs reasonability to protect their core ground.3~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round c) its key to compensate the structural skewShah 19 ~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 4~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.5~ The neg must not contest the aff framework if it is Kantianism and disclosed 20 minutes before round. ~a~ aff strat: key to ensuring the 6 min aff doesn't get mooted and solve for the neg reactivity advantage, which outweighs ~1~ recourse: there are infinite possible 1ncs but the aff is tied to the topic ~2~ creates a 7-13 skew ~b~ topic ed: the neg can read a 7-minute case press which is better since it allows us to debate the nuances of the topic and its application to one philosophy, which outweighs since we only have 2 months. Also, switch side debate solves any fairness concerns since they pick the framework when they affirm.6~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution~a~–reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare ~b~ the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it. | 2/14/22 |
ND-AC-Kant v04Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Harker AR | Judge: Anthony Brown 1AC – FramingI Value MoralityThe starting point of ethics is practical reason1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason solves because to question reason, you would use your reason to formulate the question.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions (like gathering leaves, heating water etc.). Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ External World Fallacy- Only internal knowledge can be trusted. Experience is corrupt – we could be dreaming or hallucinating.4~ Constitutivism- Only a priori knowledge exists across all subjects, empirics vary.5~ Is/ought gap- Empirics tell us what is, not what ought to be. Descriptions can't prove ought statements; only internal knowledge can prove oughts.6~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.7~ Inescapability – Every agent intrinsically values practical reason when they go about setting and pursuing an end under a moral theory, as it presupposes that the end they are committing is an intrinsic good. That necessitates practical reason as a necessary means to follow through on any given end.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action in every instance.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since every agent can reason, thus ethics must be universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. For example to say that we can violate someone's freedom would entail a violation of your own freedom which is contradictory and non-universal.Thus, the value criterion is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ resource disparities – Util and other frameworks require carded dumps and large files of evidence to derive offense which allows large prep squads to have an advantage. Kantianism solves because all that is needed is analytic offense to win a debate about Kantian morals.~3~ Principle of equality – A system of equal freedom recognizes every agent as equal and legitimate and gives equal obligations.~4~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands1AC – ContentionI affirm the resolution Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ A Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96Terry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~4~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~5~ Strikes prevent workers from being used as a meansLofaso 17 Anne Marie Lofaso, Workers' Rights as Natural Human Rights, 71 U. Miami L. Rev. 565 (2017) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol71/iss3/3 ~Anne Marie Lofaso is Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. In 2010, she was named WVU College of Law Professor of the Year.~ ~6~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ | 2/14/22 |
ND-AC-Kant v5Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Claudia Taylor AA | Judge: Javier Navarette 1AC – FramingThe meta-ethic is Procedural Moral RealismThis entails that moral facts stem from procedures while substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –1. Collapses – the only way to verify whether something is a moral fact is by using procedures to warrant it.2. 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.3. Is/Ought Gap – we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It's impossible to derive an ought statement from descriptive facts about the world, necessitating a priori premises.Practical reason is that procedure – Any moral rule faces the problem of regress – I can keep asking "why should I follow this." Regress collapses to skep since no one can generate obligations absent grounds for accepting them. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason to do in the first place which concedes its authority.Moral law must be universal — A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.That means we must universally will maxims — ~A~ our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves any more than 2+24 can be true only for me. ~B~ Any non-universal norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends.==== Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –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. Resource disparity – a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required which o/w accessibility.3. Motivation – The categorical imperative is intrinsically motivational since it respects the nature of agency, which is the mechanism by which we can set and pursue any end – absent the motivation to pursue ends you would no longer be an agent, which means to be an agent necessitates being motivated to act.4. Consequences Fail – ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands5. Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.6. There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employersTerry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~4~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~5~ Strikes prevent workers from being used as a meansLofaso 17 Anne Marie Lofaso, Workers' Rights as Natural Human Rights, 71 U. Miami L. Rev. 565 (2017) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol71/iss3/3 ~Anne Marie Lofaso is Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. In 2010, she was named WVU College of Law Professor of the Year.~ ~6~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ | 12/4/21 |
ND-AC-Kant v6Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: Sreyaash Das 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power c) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.5~ Is/ought gap- experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~4~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96-Terry Sheppard, "Liberalism and the Charter: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike" (1996) 5 Dal J Leg Stud 117. Yoaks ~3~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~4~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~6~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, and competing interps under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round.3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.4~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution~a~–reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare ~b~ the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.5~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~a~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~b~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~c~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me | 12/4/21 |
ND-AC-Kant v7Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Spencer Orlowski Nikhil Ajjarapu 1AC – FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power c) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.5~ Is/ought gap- experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks. If we accept one contradiction we accept all statements as true.Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~4~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.generics permit exceptions, so pics don't negate generic bare plurals — strikes is a generic bare plural because it lacks a quantifier, so speccing a strike is non-topical and PICs dont negate~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~4~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, and competing interps under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get throughAdvantageCourtsThe right to strike is Customary International Law, but the US fails to meet opinio juris standards. Perception of US insufficiency breeds uncertainty with confidence in international law and spirals into noncompliance – that causes a legitimacy crisis. No alt causes to legitimacy – FOA is central to the ILO and the biggest internal link.Brudney 21 ~James; 2/8/21; Joseph Crowley Chair in Labor and Employment Law, Fordham Law School; "The Right to Strike as Customary International Law," THE YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol 46, https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1710andcontext=yjil~~ Justin Brackets in original That prevents harmonization of norms and throws the functioning of international institutions into question – prefer empirics.Seifert 21 ~Achim; 2021; Full Professor of Private Law, German and European Labor Law and Comparative Law at the University of Jena (since 2011). He holds both German State Exams in Law and a PhD of the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-University of Frankfurt (1998). After his Habilitation ~Post-Doc~ in 2006 at the University of Frankfurt and several short-term Replacements at the Universities of Frankfurt and Trier (2006-2008), he became an Associate Professor of European and International Labor Law at the University of Luxembourg (2008). His main fields of interest are the Labor Law of the European Union and Comparative Labor Law, including the methodology of Comparative Law. Achim SEIFERT serves as co-editor of the Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal (CLLPJ) and is a member of the editorial board of the European Labour Law Journal (ELLJ) as well as of the Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale (RDCTSS). He is an associated member of the International Academy of Comparative Law (since 2013) and fellow of the European Law Institute (ELI) (since 2014); furthermore he has been member of the Jean-Monnet-Centre of Excellence at the University of Jena (2013-2016). He has been visiting Professor at the Universities of Bordeaux, Nantes, Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne), Luigi Bocconi/Milan and Leuven (Global Law Programme) and has taught as adjunct professor at the University of Luxembourg between 2011 and 2016; "Book Review," European Labour Law Journal, https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/2031952521994412~~ Justin Scenario one is SDG:Harmonizing international labor standards are key to Sustainable Development Goals – compliance is key.ILO 15 ~International Labor Organization; The International Labour Organization is a United Nations agency whose mandate is to advance social and economic justice through setting international labour standards. Founded in October 1919 under the League of Nations, it is the first and oldest specialised agency of the UN; "The benefits of International Labour Standards," No date stated but most recent event cited is 2015, https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/the-benefits-of-international-labour-standards/lang—en/index.htm~ Justin That's key to head off a laundry list of interacting catastrophic risks, the combination of which causes extinction and amplifies every other threat.Tom Cernev and Richard Fenner 20, Australian National University; Centre for Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Engineering Department, "The importance of achieving foundational Sustainable Development Goals in reducing global risk," Futures, Vol. 115, January 2020, Elsevier. Recut Justin | 12/23/21 |
ND-AC-Kant v8Tournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 2 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Jacob Lugo 1AC – FrameworkThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.4~ All arguments by definition appeal to reason – otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.Rationality necessitates a free will – rational action must set before itself objective ends that we can categorically pursue through setting and pursuing ends. All frameworks concede the validity of a free will because otherwise people can't be held culpable for actions they didn't cause.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience.2~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal.3~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~c~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~3~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression.Farr 2, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. ~4~ Practical reasoning demands that agents recognize their universal subjectivity to form commitments with people deemed different.O'Neill 2000, Onora (2000). Bounds of Justice. Cambridge University Press. ~5~ Also, even if ideal-theory is bad, the alternatives are far worse because they don't rely on fixed principles and devolve into relativism at a particular space and time—you can't measure something with a ruler constantly changing length, which means we need a standard to hold people to.~6~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE 1AC – ContentionI affirm; A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Put away your turns: strikes are an omission of actionBenjamin 78 Walter Benjamin, On Violence, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings ~Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist~ 1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.3~ Brain studies prove racial bias is flexible, and that orienting groups around institutional change best breaks them down.Cikara and Van Bavel 15 (Mina Cikara is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of the Intergroup Neuroscience Lab at Harvard University. Her research examines the conditions under which groups and individuals are denied social value, agency, and empathy. Jay Van Bavel is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of the Social Perception and Evaluation Laboratory at New York University. The Flexibility of Racial Bias: Research suggests that racism is not hard wired, offering hope on one of America's enduring problems. June 2, 2015. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-flexibility-of-racial-bias/) 4~ Optimism has succeeded in improving material conditions and must be sustained to achieve racial equality(read After Yellow if time permits) | 12/11/21 |
ND-AC-LAYTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Andrew Carrol 1ACFrameworkI affirm the resolutionResolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.The value is morality since ought indicates a moral obligationThe value criterion is maximizing expected well-being which means causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.There are two main reasons for this:Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.In summary, if I can prove to you that allowing the unconditional right of workers to strike would have a good impact on the world, then you should vote for the affirmative in today's debate.C1: Income InequalityCompanies are facing massive job shortages because of drastically low wages. Labor Unions are essential to increase worker compensation and resist income inequalityLopezlira and Jacobs 9/23 ~(Enrique, is the director of the Low-Wage Work program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center. He is a labor economist, directing and conducting research on how policies affect working families, with a particular focus on how these policies impact racial and gender equity. Doctorate in Economics from Howard University) (Ken, the chair of the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, where he has been a labor specialist since 2002.) "Don't Mistake the Disappointing Jobs Numbers for a Labor Shortage," Barron's, 9/3/21. https://www.barrons.com/articles/dont-mistake-the-disappointing-jobs-numbers-for-a-labor-shortage-51630698151~~ RR Strikes increase the influence and power of labor unions. -every strike encourages more strikes.Hertel-Fernandez et al. 20 ~Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, associate professor of public affairs at Columbia University, where he studies American political economy, with a focus on the politics of business, labor, wealthy donors, and policy, Suresh Naidu, professor of economics and public affairs at Columbia University, where he researches economic effects of political transitions, the economic history of slavery and labor institutions, international migration, and economic applications of naturallanguage processing, and Adam Reich, associate professor of sociology at Columbia University, where he studies economic and cultural sociology, especially how people make sense of their economic activities and economic positions within organizations, 2020, "Schooled by Strikes? The Effects of Large-Scale Labor Unrest on Mass Attitudes toward the Labor Movement," American Political Science Association, https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001279~~/Kankee Unions allow effective collective bargaining which is key to reducing income inequality.Bivens et al, 17 (Josh, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), "How today's unions help working people," 8/24/17, Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays-unions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/) Higher wages boost economic growth- research consensus- multiple reasonsWolfers 15 (Justin is professor of economics and professor of public policy at University of Michigan. "Higher Wages for Low-Income Workers Lead to Higher Productivity." January 13, 2015. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/higher-wages-low-income-workers-lead-higher-productivity) Income inequality leads to violence and magnifies every other impact – outweighs on probability because it's continually happening in the squoPileberg 17 Silje Pileberg, 7-7-2017, "Inequality may lead to violence and extremism," UiO Department of Psychology, https://www.sv.uio.no/psi/english/research/news-and-events/news/inequality-may-lead-to-violence-and-extremism.html, SJBE
| 12/11/21 |
SO-AC-Ethics of CareTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Diana Alvarez | 9/4/21 |
SO-AC-EvergreeningTournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Honor VD | Judge: Donny Peters 1AC1AC – InnovationThe advantage is InnovationWe are in an innovation crisis – new drugs are not being developed in favor of re-purposing old drugs to infinitely extend patent expiration.Feldman 1 Robin Feldman 2-11-2019 "'One-and-done' for new drugs could cut patent thickets and boost generic competition" https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/ (Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson '54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation)SidK + Elmer We control Uniqueness – up to 80 of all new patents are not new drugs but old ones.Feldman 2 Robin Feldman 18, May your drug price be evergreen, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2018, Pages 590–647, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy022 Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson '54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation (Study Notes: Presenting the first comprehensive study of evergreening, this article examines the extent to which evergreening behavior—which can be defined as artificially extending the protection cliff—may contribute to the problem. The author analyses all drugs on the market between 2005 and 2015, combing through 60,000 data points to examine every instance in which a company added a new patent or exclusivity.)sid The only major study confirms our Internal Link – Evergreening decimates competition by resulting in functional monopoliesArnold Ventures 20 9-24-2020 "'Evergreening' Stunts Competition, Costs Consumers and Taxpayers" https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/evergreening-stunts-competition-costs-consumers-and-taxpayers/ (Arnold Ventures is focused on evidence-based giving in a wide range of categories including: criminal justice, education, health care, and public finance)Elmer Pharma spills-over – has cascading global impacts that are necessary for human survival.NAS 8 National Academy of Sciences 12-3-2008 "The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future Summary of a Workshop" Re-cut by Elmer Expanding breadth of Pharma Innovation into neglected diseases results in global linkages that revitalizes global health diplomacy.Hotez 16, Peter J. Blue marble health: an innovative plan to fight diseases of the poor amid wealth. JHU Press, 2016. (Sabin Vaccine Institute and Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Departments of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology)Elmer Solves hotspot escalationNang and Martin 17, Roberto N., and Keith Martin. "Global health diplomacy: A new strategic defense pillar." Military medicine 182.1-2 (2017): 1456-1460. (MC, Global Health Division, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences)Elmer Only innovation now solves AMR super-bugs — timeframe's key.Sobti 19 ~Dr. Navjot Kaur Sobti is an internal medicine resident physician at Dartmouth-Hitchcock-Medical Center/Dartmouth School of Medicine and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit. May 1, 2019. "Amid superbug crisis, scientists urge innovation". https://abcnews.go.com/Health/amidst-superbug-crisis-scientists-urge-innovation/story?id=62763415~~ Dhruv Extinction - generic defense doesn't apply.Srivatsa 17 Kadiyali Srivatsa 1-12-2017 "Superbug Pandemics and How to Prevent Them" https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/12/superbug-pandemics-and-how-to-prevent-them/ (doctor, inventor, and publisher. He worked in acute and intensive pediatric care in British hospitals)Elmer 1AC – PlanPlan – The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines by implementing a one-and-done approach for patent protection.The Plan solves Evergreening.Feldman 3 Robin Feldman 2-11-2019 "'One-and-done' for new drugs could cut patent thickets and boost generic competition" https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/ (Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson '54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation)SidK + Elmer 1AC – Framework (Long)Independently, pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being or act hedonistic util. Prefer additionally –1~ Death is bad and outweighs – a) agents can't act if they fear for their bodily security which constrains every ethical theory, b) it destroys the subject itself – kills any ability to achieve value in ethics since life is a prerequisite which means it's a side constraint since we can't reach the end goal of ethics without life2~ 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~ 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.Extinction first –1 – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible2 – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities3 – Moral obligation – allowing people to die is unethical and should be prevented because it creates ethics towards other people4 – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical5 – Moral uncertainty – if we're unsure about which interpretation of the world is true – we ought to preserve the world to keep debating about it1AC – Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round.3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.4~ Aff RVIs—-A~ I have a 4 minute 1AR to answer T or Theory which skews my time from other arguments. T bites out of a higher percentage of my rebuttal time.—-B~ No risk issue for the negative, you can go for it in the 2nr if I undercover but if I overallocate you can just kick it.3~ Nothing in the 1AC triggers presumption or permissibility – but they should affirm:Presumption and Permissibility affirm:—-A~ 1ar time skew means 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse, if the neg can't prove the aff false you should presume its true—-B~ You presume statements true unless proven false – If I tell you my name is Vishnu you believe me unless you have evidence to the contrary—-C~ Presuming statements are false is impossible – we can't operate in the world if we can't trust anything we hear | 9/11/21 |
SO-AC-KantTournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Stephen F Austin EN | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield FramingThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power.2~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.And, reason must be universal – a reason for one agent is a reason for another agent. I can't say 2+24 is true for me but not for you – that's incoherent. any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others, key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.==== The standard is consistency with a libertarian state of non-interference.Prefer:~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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.~3~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~D~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands~4~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family~5~ What the neg reads doesn't prove the resolution false but challenges an assumption of it. Statements which make assumptions like the resolution should be read as a tacit conditional which is an if p then q statement. For all conditionals, if the antecedent is false, then the conditional as a whole is true.OffenseI affirm the resolution as a general principle, that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property for medicines. CPs, Spec, and PICs don't negate since they do not disprove my general thesis.Now Affirm:~1~Intellectual property is coercive by restricting what people can do with their propertyKrawisz 9 ~Krawisz, Daniel. "The Fallacy of Intellectual Property." Mises Institute, 8 Aug. 2009, mises.org/library/fallacy-intellectual-property.dhs NJ~ ~2~ The intention of intellectual property is to discriminate and help preserve rights for only a select few.Kanning 12~Kanning, Michael A., "A Philosophical Analysis of Intellectual Property: In Defense of Instrumentalism" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4094~~// RaZ ~3~ Property rights prohibit freedom to make advancement on technologies; people are given exclusive ownership which hinder progress.Kanning 12~Kanning, Michael A., "A Philosophical Analysis of Intellectual Property: In Defense of Instrumentalism" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4094~~// RaZ ~4~ Hindering a hindrance~a~ You can only restrict the freedoms of inventors when the invention being withheld is life saving. Death kills freedoms and autonomy.Merges 11~ROBERT P. MERGES; "JUSTIFYING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 2011~RaZ ~b~ Medicines are created with the intention of saving lives.Nemours~TeensHealth from Nemours ;Understanding Medicines and What They Do; https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/meds.html~~//RaZ Underview1~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. d) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI's making it impossible to check abuse e) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance f) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can't get through2~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round.3~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.4~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution ~a~–reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare ~b~ the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.5~ Permissibility affirms- Freezes action – requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. | 9/11/21 |
SO-AC-Kant v2Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: TJ Maher 2 The intention of intellectual property is to discriminate and help preserve rights for only a select few. 3 Property rights prohibit freedom to make advancement on technologies; people are given exclusive ownership which hinder progress. 4 Hindering a hindrance b Medicines are created with the intention of saving lives. Underview | 9/11/21 |
SO-AC-Kant v3Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Johnathan Hsu | 10/17/21 |
SO-AC-Kant v4Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 4 | Opponent: Wenatchee JK | Judge: Aisha bawany | 10/19/21 |
SO-AC-Kant v5Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Claudia Ribera | 10/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/20/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/17/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/23/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/10/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/12/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/13/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/13/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/9/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
1/17/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/14/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
|