Dulles Nataraja Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 1 | Harker RM | Claudia Ribera |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 5 | Memorial SC | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Lake Highland Prep AB | Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 1 | Dr Phillips AD | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 4 | Lexington JB | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Harrison MB | Alexander Torrez |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Garland LY | Castillo, Ciocca, Wu |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Strake KS | Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Marlborough TZ | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 3 | Denton Guyer SB | Javier Navarette |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Greenhill EN | Dylan Liu |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 1 | Oak Grove FK | Dannise Brown |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 4 | Oak Grove RS | Jenna Wright |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | 5 | Cabot JO | Daniel Ciocca |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | Doubles | Ardsley KK | Mohammah Khattak Phoenix Pittman Daniel Shatzkin |
|
|
| |
| Isidore Newman | Octas | Bridgeland PT | Taj Robinson Amanda Ciocca J Hammon |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 2 | Plano East AW | Ben Erdmann |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 3 | Winston Churchill AH | Jugal Amodwala |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 5 | Garland DA | Nevin Gera |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Honor AP | Ronak Ahuja |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Diamond Bar NC | Jason Lan |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 1 | Immaculate Heart BC | Aashir Sanjrani |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury | 1 | Cheyenne Central GH | Eva Lamberson |
|
|
| |
| Pennsbury | 4 | Hawken AS | Jaylin Talmadge |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 2 | Woodlands TS | Nelson Okunlala |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 3 | Westlake MR | Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| Strake | 6 | Vestavia Hills DS | Spiro Hoxha |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | 1 | Strake CH | Spiro Hoxha |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | 4 | Strake JX | Javier Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| UH Cougar Classic | Octas | Carnegie Vanguard LH | Arun Mehra, Joseph Georges, Holden Bukowksky |
|
|
| |
| h | Semis | k | y |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 1 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1ac- Egypt |
| Glenbrooks | 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1ac- kant |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Andrew Qin 1ac- alienation |
| Grapevine | 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1ac- kant |
| Grapevine | 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Joey Georges 1ac- 21 Savage Pan-Africanism |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1ac- Whole res |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Castillo, Ciocca, Wu 1ac- antiblackness |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 1ac- pandemics |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1ac- MSF |
| Heart of Texas | 3 | Opponent: Denton Guyer SB | Judge: Javier Navarette 1ac- Covid |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 1ac- stock |
| Isidore Newman | 1 | Opponent: Oak Grove FK | Judge: Dannise Brown 1ac- stock |
| Isidore Newman | 4 | Opponent: Oak Grove RS | Judge: Jenna Wright 1ac- stock |
| Isidore Newman | 5 | Opponent: Cabot JO | Judge: Daniel Ciocca 1ac- stock |
| Isidore Newman | Doubles | Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Mohammah Khattak Phoenix Pittman Daniel Shatzkin 1ac- stock |
| Isidore Newman | Octas | Opponent: Bridgeland PT | Judge: Taj Robinson Amanda Ciocca J Hammon 1ac- agriculture |
| Longhorn Classic | 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann 1ac- china |
| Longhorn Classic | 3 | Opponent: Winston Churchill AH | Judge: Jugal Amodwala 1ac- whole res |
| Longhorn Classic | 5 | Opponent: Garland DA | Judge: Nevin Gera 1ac- nigeria |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja 1ac- Rhetorical Decolonization |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 1ac- evergreen |
| Palm Classic | 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Aashir Sanjrani 1ac- Mars |
| Pennsbury | 1 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Eva Lamberson 1ac- lay |
| Pennsbury | 4 | Opponent: Hawken AS | Judge: Jaylin Talmadge 1ac- lay |
| Strake | 2 | Opponent: Woodlands TS | Judge: Nelson Okunlala 1ac- stock |
| Strake | 3 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Andrew Qin 1ac - PTD |
| Strake | 6 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Spiro Hoxha 1ac- non t |
| UH Cougar Classic | 1 | Opponent: Strake CH | Judge: Spiro Hoxha 1ac- debris |
| UH Cougar Classic | 4 | Opponent: Strake JX | Judge: Javier Hernandez 1ac- debris |
| UH Cougar Classic | Octas | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard LH | Judge: Arun Mehra, Joseph Georges, Holden Bukowksky 1ac- constellations |
| h | Semis | Opponent: k | Judge: y weefwsdrfv |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0-ContactTournament: h | Round: Semis | Opponent: k | Judge: y 1-Generics | 9/4/21 |
1-NC-UtilTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1 – Pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 Kenneth Blum, 1Department of Psychiatry, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton VA Medical Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA 5Department of Precision Medicine, Geneus Health LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA 6Department of Addiction Research and Therapy, Nupathways Inc., Innsbrook, MO, USA 7Department of Clinical Neurology, Path Foundation, New York, NY, USA 8Division of Neuroscience-Based Addiction Therapy, The Shores Treatment and Recovery Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA 9Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 10Division of Addiction Research, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC. North Kingston, RI, USA 11Victory Nutrition International, Lederach, PA., USA 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA, Marjorie Gondré-Lewis, 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA 13Departments of Anatomy and Psychiatry, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC US, Bruce Steinberg, 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA, Igor Elman, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, David Baron, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Edward J Modestino, 14Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA, Rajendra D Badgaiyan, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, Mark S Gold 16Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, "Our evolved unique pleasure circuit makes humans different from apes: Reconsideration of data derived from animal studies", U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 February 2018, accessed: 19 August 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446569/, R.S. 2. Extinction first –A – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible which proves moral uncertaintyB – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessitiesC – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalD - Even if life is bad now, a fiery nuclear inferno death flips the uniq question for their impactsE - Consent – they don't get to make a decision for billions who find value in life | 10/16/21 |
1-NC-Util v2Tournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 1 | Opponent: Oak Grove FK | Judge: Dannise Brown 1The standard is act hedonistic util. Prefer –1 – Pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 2 – No intent-foresight distinction – if I foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of my deliberation since its intrinsic to my action3 – Actor spec – governments lack wills or intentions and inevitably deals with tradeoffs – outweighs because agents have differing obligations.4 – No act omission distinction – choosing not to act is an action in of itself since you had to make an active decision to omit. Walking past a drowning baby and choosing not to save it is a cognitive decision you were faced with and you actively decided to keep walking b) warranting a distinction gives agents the permissible choice of omitting from any ethical action since omissions lack culpability.No calc indicts – a) no philosophy actually says that consequences don't matter at all since otherwise it would indict every theory since they use causal events to understand how their ethics have worked in the past and through the justification of premises b) we don't need consequences – winning hedonism proves we're the only one with impacts to it which means risk of offense framing is sufficient c) they're blippy nibs that set the aff at an unfair advantage since they only have to win one while we have to beat them all – voting issue for fairnessExtinction 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 it | 12/10/21 |
1-NC-Util v3Tournament: Pennsbury | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Eva Lamberson I Negate the resolution Resolved: Private appropriation of outer space 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.3 reasons for this:1~ Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.2~ Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.3~ Extinction is bad and outweighs under any framework.MacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ | 2/5/22 |
1-NC-Util v4Tournament: Pennsbury | Round: 4 | Opponent: Hawken AS | Judge: Jaylin Talmadge I value Morality.The standard is utilitarianism~1~ 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. ~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 unethicalPrefer –~1~ Actor Specificity – Util is the best in the context of governments which is the actor they useA~ Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action.D~ Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they're empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action | 2/5/22 |
1-ROB-Truth TestingTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 21. Logic: Debate is fundamentally a game with rules, which requires the better competitor to win. Every other ROB is just a reason why there are other ways to play the game but are not consistent enough with the purpose of the game to vote on, just like you don't win a basketball game for shooting the most 3s. | 9/11/21 |
1-ROB-Truth Testing v2Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja The ROB is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.1. Fiat is illusory: Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn't change anything and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me. Answering this triggers constitutivism since the win is necessary for your scholarship which means rules inside of the game matter. | 9/4/21 |
1-ROB-Truth Testing v4Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard LH | Judge: Arun Mehra, Joseph Georges, Holden Bukowksky 3The 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.====Good Samaritan Paradox—in order to say "I want to fix problem", you must say that you want violence to exist, since it requires the problem to exist to solve, which makes a moral attempt inherently immoral – turns the aff.==== ====Knowability Paradox—In order to make a moral decision, you must know everything about a situation and act immediately in the face on injustice, otherwise you allow injustice to occur. Impossible since a) we cannot know everything about a situation and b) there is not infinite time to make an ethical decision. Given that there must be deliberation over any moral decision to ensure its correctness in relation to the situation, the very act of deliberation is violence, as you allow the injustice to continue, but if you were to act immediately you would act without proper knowledge to correctly address the injustice.==== | 1/16/22 |
1-ROB-Truth testing v3Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw
3. Isomorphism: ROBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it's solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn't a closest estimate. 6. Constitutivism: 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 b) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game. | 9/11/21 |
1-T-FrameworkTournament: Strake | Round: 6 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Spiro Hoxha 1A~ Interpretation: Affirmative debaters must defend the topic as confined by the resolutionB~ Violation – they don't; the aff is ~here~ embracing queer nationC~ standards:~1~ Predictable limits and ground – allowing the aff to arbitrarily dictate the grounds for the debate makes negative engagement impossible by skirting a predictable starting point and permitting infinite affs, which renders negative research useless and gives them an insurmountable prep advantage. Their model also creates a race to the margins where they're incentivized to pick uncontestable advocacies like "racism is bad." Aff infinite prep and frontlining means they always have the upper hand on whatever small clash I can generate.Also, TVA solves –1~ TVA- Defend that the queer nation bans space exploration by private entities2~ TVA – Deem Space exploration is unjust as a method to disrupt the states ability to escape earth whenever you engage in guerilla warfare3~ TVA – Deem Space exploration unjust as a method of counter-politics bcs it interferes with the interests of the state.4~ TVA – Defend deeming space exploration unjust as a method of rupturing norms bcs the current world cenetred around productive bodies aims to explore outwards.Even if there are disads to the TVA, the benefits outweigh – A~ policy-making: cedeing the political lets the alt-right take over and pass more oppressive policies, we need to speak the language of the state B~ turn: disads prove there's neg ground which is the basis for valuable contestation; they aren't entitled to the perfect aff.~2~ Prefer educated hope: we draw from the paranoid schizoid theory to demand more from the state – negativity is not mutually exclusive with revolutionary praxisDuggan and Muñoz ~Lisa and Jose; 2010; "Hope and hopelessness: A dialogue"; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07407700903064946; Duggan is a prof of social and cultural analysis @ NYU, Muñoz was a Cuban American academic in the fields of performance studies, visual culture, queer theory, cultural studies, and critical theory; BP~ Fairness is a voter because it's an intrinsic good – debate is fundamentally a game that requires effective competition to give meaning to the work we do and that benefit can only be actualized through an equal chance to prepare so the judge can decide.Filter impacts through intrinsic-ness – debate doesn't make us loyal to any content – the only thing that happens is one debater wins and the other loses.Fairness is the highest impact because it calls into question your ability to evaluate substance due to an incongruence in ability to debate – if one debater had ten minutes to speak and another had three, you can't accurately decide the winner.Impact turns to fairness are non-sensical and concede its validity – you follow rules created to ensure fair debate like speech times and assume the judge will evaluate your arguments fairly.Drop the debater to set a precedent for the best norms of debate and to deter future abuse. Use competing interps because what is reasonably fair is arbitrary and reasonability encourages debaters to get away with increasingly unfair strategies through defense on theory. And, don't vote on the RVI on T 1~ because it encourages debaters to bait theory 2~ illogical – no one should win for being fair 3~ develops a chilling affect against checking actual abuseFairness above the K1~ Fairness is a prior question to effective dialogue – If fairness is bad writ large vote neg regardless of the flow because it's unfair2~ If the judge doesn't enforce fairness, none of your scholarship would pass since it would give them the unfair jurisdiction to reject it and vote you down. Even if they don't, rejecting fairness is a practice that would justify a bad norm, which all your arguments are predicated on anyways.3~ We can't compare or interact to find the best solution to oppression if the unfair nature of your arguments prevents me from strategizing. Fairness is an integral part of your solvency.4~ Unfair practices would make kids quit debate if they can't check it which means less people to spread your message to so the shell is a prior question.Every reason fairness is a voter is a reason you can't read substantive take-outs to the shell since it precludes your evaluation of them.Theory isn't violent – A~ I don't have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. Theory doesn't ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time.Theory before the K – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can't say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn't given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn't answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don't know if they're valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Reject aff pre empts – not clearly delineated, impossible to know implications | 12/18/21 |
1-Theory-Aff Flex BadTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann | 12/4/21 |
1-Theory-Bidirectional Paradigm IssuesTournament: Strake | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Andrew Qin 1Interpretation – All paradigm issues proposed by either debater must be bidirectional. To clarify, neither debater may claim a particular paradigm on theory only applies to one side.Violation – You readPrefer –1. Reciprocity – Only granting one side access to a paradigm issue is structurally irreciprocal since I cannot gain access to a particular model of theory debate. All paradigm issues affect my ability to generate offense on theory since I either don't get an RVI or drop the debater which hinders equal access to the ballot on the same layer. Reciprocity is a voter since it's the definition of procedural fairness as it structurally changes the chances of winning.2. Norming – One side having exclusive access to a paradigm issue a) is incoherent since even if particular cases might justify one side getting a paradigm issue it can't set the norm that one side never gets it b) kills theory clash since we spend more time debating paradigm issues than the actual shells which kills our ability to generate the best actual norms on theory and c) never allows a discussion of which wholistic paradigm issue is generally good because the debate is tailored down to each side which means we never set norms on paradigm issues.Voters – Norming is an independent voter since justifying the value of debate necessarily justifies the norms of the activity being good in order for debate to be valuable. And, theory education comes first since it is the ultimate test of critical thinking that carries outside round and materially shapes the activity we all care about in a positive way since theory is how we reclaim the activity from the institution that codifies repressive rules. This shell controls the internal link to all others since your structural access to other shells is precluded by the abuse story on this one – we can never endorse good norms or determine which norms are good insofar as you have skewed the creation of them.DD – a) deter abuse b) I spent time reading theory c) The round has already been skewedCI – a) Reasonability is arbitrary since idk your BS meter b) It fosters the best norms through encouraging the fairest rule c) Reasonability collapses by debating the brightlineNo RVI – a) It's illogical to vote for you for being fair b) Rounds without theory would be irresolvable c) It incentivizes you to bait theory and win off a scripted CIMeta-theory outweighs ~a~ it indicts your ability to read theory ~b~ any reason theory precedes substance is a reason meta-theory comes first since it's an epistemic indict. And my abuse is justified by their abuse, the only way for me to compensate for the existing disadvantages was to read an abusive position myself, don't drop me for trying to compensate for a disadvantage. And, this means you evaluate the theory debate under a norms creation paradigm. | 12/18/21 |
1-Theory-DisclosureTournament: Grapevine | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Castillo, Ciocca, Wu Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021/2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don't1~ Evidence Ethics —- disclosure deters mis-cutting, power-tagging, abuse of brackets and ellipses, and plagiarism. Independent reason to vote you down because it promotes better norms about academic engagement—-debate is an academic environment and must ensure that we become fair scholars. Even if you don't lose on fairness in the round, you will lose in college if you violate academic ethics which establish a crucial real-world norm and outweighs any in-round impact. Also, if you aren't honest, we don't know what else you're lying about which means we don't know if your arguments are actually true since they can be misrepresented.2~ Quality engagement- Disclosure allows for in-depth preparation before the round and the tournament which allows debaters to effectively write case negs and arguments. Their model forecloses the chance to test their aff against a well-prepared opponent, diminishing the only unique benefits to debate. Only our interpretation allows for intricate debate and advocacy refinement through the process of in depth argumentation on the 1ac which makes debates better in the long term. Engagement outweighs and is a voter-all of the benefits of their role of the ballot relies on deliberation and rigorous contestation, but they have precluded our ability to engage in it which makes it a one sided monologue and link turns their arguments because it prevents the best possible conclusion. AND 4~ Small school inclusion – disclosure ensures equity of prepping resources.Bietz 10 Mike (Coach for Harvard-Westlake) "The Case for Public Case Disclosure." NFL Rostrum, Vol. 84, Issue 9. May 2010. https://nationalforensicleague.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/publications/05-201020Complete20Rostrum.pdf JW
Framing: You can't coopt any of the reasons why procedurals are bad in the context of the affirmative since I don't constrain your ability to read it– the contention is that this aff should've been read, just disclosed.Fairness above the K1~ Fairness is a prior question to effective dialogue – If fairness is bad writ large vote neg regardless of the flow because it's unfair2~ If the judge doesn't enforce fairness, none of your scholarship would pass since it would give them the unfair jurisdiction to reject it and vote you down. Even if they don't, rejecting fairness is a practice that would justify a bad norm, which all your arguments are predicated on anyways.3~ We can't compare or interact to find the best solution to oppression if the unfair nature of your arguments prevents me from strategizing. Fairness is an integral part of your solvency.4~ Unfair practices would make kids quit debate if they can't check it which means less people to spread your message to so the shell is a prior question.Every reason fairness is a voter is a reason you can't read substantive take-outs to the shell since it precludes your evaluation of them.Disclosure above the K1~ Out of round practices constrain what can be read in round2~ Lexically prior, they might indite the neg but I indite their months old practicesEdu- funded ny schoolsDTD- dta illogical, time skewNo RVI's or perf cons- illogical, baiting, if theory is bad and you vote on a turn to theory you are voting on theoryCI- intervention, race to bottom, collapses, yours vs bestTheory isn't violent – A~ I don't have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. Theory doesn't ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time. B~ Exclusion is inevitable – every role of the ballot excludes some arguments and even saying Theory bad excludes it – that means we should delineate ground along reciprocal lines, not abandon division altogether. Reading Theory isn't psychic violence – that was above, but especially if we're not going for it since reading Theory can be used to prevent aff shiftiness and make substance a viable option.No silencing DA - Theory is just like a disad or critique we've said a certain practice the aff took was bad and it would've been better had they done it differently not that they are bad debaters – just like the cap k says the aff engaged in some practice that reinforced capitalism and it would've been better if they had emphasized Marxism – impositions in some form are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder and needs link arguments – every disad link says the aff did something wrong and theres an implicit version of the aff that wouldn't have linkedTheory before the K – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can't say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn't given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn't answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don't know if they're valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Reject aff pre empts – not clearly delineated, impossible to know implications | 10/16/21 |
1-Theory-May not justify 1ar theory dtd ci and highest layer of the roundTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1A~ Interpretation: the aff may not say 1ar theory is legit, drop the debater, competing interps, and highest layer.B~ Violation: the underview spike.C~ Standards:~1~ Strat skew—all of these paradigm issues in conjunction make it impossible for the neg to win because reading a frivolous 1AR shell with no counter-interp offense wins the round on the spot. Their interp incentivizes the aff to read a 1AR shell with marginal offense because it is a no-risk issue sufficient to win them the round that the neg can't generate offense against under competing interps. Aff theory first makes it the highest layer, so winning it wins the round. | 11/21/21 |
1-Theory-ROTB SpecTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja 1A. Interpretation: If the affirmative differs from the conventional Truth Testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC where they clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and what constitutes that offense with implications on how to weighMultiple ways the AC violates:C. Standards:Engagement –If I don't know how the role of the ballot functions, its impossible for me to engage the aff, since knowing what counts as offense for me is a prerequisite to being able to make meaningful arguments that clash with yours. Knowing what a legitimate advocacy is ensures that I read something that is relevant to your method, and knowing how to weigh gives us a standard for what is relevant, This is true of role of the ballots since there is no norm on what "performative engagement" is in the same way there is for what counts as util offense. Few impacts:a) Education – when two ships pass in the night we don't learn anything, education is derived from analyzing and comparing each other's arguments. This also guts novice inclusion because now they can never learn arguments in round.b) Link turns your role of the ballot – your impacts are premised on actually having a debate and engaging with issues of oppression. Almost impossible to engage roles of the ballot are uniquely bad since no one will take seriously a position that can't be clashed with, so you harm any progress your position can create.c) Strategy Skew – You make formulating a strategy impossible since I don't know what links to your evaluative mechanism. My interp means we know what a legitimate neg advocacy is, otherwise you can make up reasons mine doesn't link to the role of the ballot in the next speech, and by specing a weighing mechanism I can know to make the most relevant arguments so you can't arbitrarily preclude them in the next speech.Framing: You can't use your ROB to exclude my shell. My shell allows you to read your role of the ballot, it just functionally constrains how you can do that. Additionally, as long as I win comparative offense to my interp it precludes on a methodological level -my method is your ROTB with specification, your is just the ROTB, so if the former is better it's a reason to vote for me even if method debates in general preclude theory. Also, if they go for the Aff first that proves the abuse of my shell since they should have specified in the AC.Voters: Fairness/Edu/DTD/CI/No RVI | 9/4/21 |
1-Theory-Spec EpistemologyTournament: Palm Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Aashir Sanjrani 2Interpretation the affirmative must specify a theory of knowledge in the aff. To clarify, what epistemology they defend. Violation: The affirmative has failed to specify their epistemologyTruth Testing: Testing the truth of the aff requires knowing how we know their evidence is true. They can't verify any of their sources and even if they could, all of their authors conclusions are distorted through hundreds of conflicting drives unique to that one person.Argumentative Responsibility: If they can't specify how they know what is true, all of their claims are empty assertions backed by someone else's empty assertions. That promotes the endless circulation of false assertions that create catastrophic self fulfilling consequences.Vote negative on presumption: There is no way to guarantee any aspects of their affirmative outside of this room which means any risk that their discourse is bad means you vote negative. | 2/12/22 |
1-Theory-Spikes on topTournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw
| 9/11/21 |
1-Theory-Standard Text SpecTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1Interpretation: Affirmatives must specify and separately delineate a standard text in the 1AC.Violation: they didn'tStandards1~ Shiftiness- They can shift out of my turns based on whatever theory of the good they operate under due to the nature of a vague standard. Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of ~Structural Violence~ coming first and I wouldn't know until the 1AR which gives them access to multiple contingent standards.2~ Real World- Philosophers need to be as specific as possible when delineating their theory since there are so many nuances and contextual applications of philosophy that require us to understand the core differences within the philosophy.This spec shell isn't regressive- it literally determines what framework the affirmative defends and how to link offense back to it | 10/19/21 |
JF-DA-Defensive SatellitesTournament: Pennsbury | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Eva Lamberson Contention 1: Defensive SatellitesNew satallites are key to defense against hypersonic missile systems.Dangwal 21 ~Ashish Dangwal, Ashish Dangwal holds a Master's degree in East-Asian studies and has a deep interest in Defence and Geopolitics related issues. He is interested in the impact of technology on foreign policy objectives as well as geopolitical operationality in the Indo-Pacific. Contact: ashishmichel@gmail.com, 12-9-2021, Latest Asian, Middle-East, EurAsian, Indian News, "US Plans To Build 'Constellation Of Satellites' To Identify, Detect and Track Russian, Chinese Hypersonic Missiles", https://eurasiantimes.com/us-plans-to-build-constellation-of-satellites-russian-chinese-hypersonic-missiles/?amp accessed on 12-22-2021~ Adam Private companies are key to building satallites-only they have the tech and intelO'Callaghan 20 ~Jonathan O'Callaghan, Jonathan is a freelance space and science journalist that specializes in commercial spaceflight, space exploration, astronomy, and astrophysics. Alongside Forbes, his work has appeared in The New York Times, Scientific American, Nature, New Scientist, Wired, and a variety of other publications. , 10-6-2020, Forbes, "Elon Musk To Build Missile-Warning Satellites For The U.S. Military After SpaceX Wins Contract", https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2020/10/06/elon-musk-to-build-missile-warning-satellites-for-the-us-military-after-spacex-wins-contract/ accessed on 12-22-2021~ Adam Unchecked hypersonic weapons will result in war – causing extinction.Lamrani 18 ~Omar Lamrani, Omar Lamrani is a reporter that focuses on air power, naval strategy, technology, logistics and military doctrine for a number of regions, including the Middle East and Asia. He studied international relations at Clark University and holds a master's degree from the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, where his thesis centered on Chinese military doctrine and the balance of power in the Western Pacific. Mr. Lamrani previously worked as an intern with the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, where he was assigned to the Afghanistan desk. 2-20-2018, accessed on 12-17-2020, Stratfor, "An Arms Race Toward Global Instability", https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/arms-race-toward-global-instability~~ Adam | 2/5/22 |
JF-DA-Space MiningTournament: Pennsbury | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Eva Lamberson Contetion 2: Space MiningAsteroids contain trillions of dollars in rare earth metals and mining them is feasibleUS Nuclear Corp 21 ("Mining a $10,000 Quadrillion Asteroid." AP NEWS, Associated Press, 1 Feb. 2021, https://apnews.com/press-release/accesswire/technology-business-science-utilities-electric-utilities-7bb32ecaac33bebef6e4b97ade588c57.//chskk) Private companies are the only way to make space mining a realityKrishnan 20 ~C A Krishnan, 8-6-2020, "Space mining: Just around the corner?," Week, https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2020/08/06/Space-mining-Just-around-the-corner.html ~accessed 12-6-21~ lydia Obtaining these resources needs to be a priority-Commercial mining solves humanities greatest threats from scarcity, climate, terror, war, and disease.Pelton 17—(Director Emeritus of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, PHD in IR from Georgetown). Pelton, Joseph N. 2017. The New Gold Rush: The Riches of Space Beckon! Springer. Accessed 8/30/19. Even if you have doubts, its far better for the environment than normal mining which is the alternative.MIT 2018 Mit Technology Review,10-19,2018, Asteroid mining might actually be better for the environment | 2/5/22 |
JF-K-BaudrilardTournament: Strake | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Sesh Joe David Herrera Amadea Datel KThe world fundamentally rests on the logic of (in)difference, in which origins are simultaneously unlocatable and everywhere all at once. The proliferation of communication under late stage capitalism washes up and crashes on the rocks of truth and falsity, erodes meaning at its shores. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best ruptures hyperreality.Baudrillard 1 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorist, true sweetheart, "Fatal Strategies"; LCA-BP~ *edited for lang The aff's severance from the flesh is hyper focused on a Platonic ideal of a perfect world that engrains semiocapitalism into social structuresHoofd 10 ~Ingrid M. Hoofd, Assistant Professor in the Communications and New Media Programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The accelerated university: Activist academic alliances and the simulation of thought, ephemera, Feb 2010, 2010 ephemera 10(1): 7-24).~ Information creates new systems of reality that feel far more intimate than reality itself – a tool used by the elite to hide the failures of meaning. A loss of information would lead to total disarray.Baudrillard 2 ~Jean; Simulacra and Simulation; Sociologist/Philosopher, cool dude; 1981; University of Michigan Press; LCA-BP~ *edited for lang The intensity with which information is disseminated leads to chronic cynicism – issues seem too complex to be helped, so the public doesn't undertake changeGao ~Liyan; prof @ Monash; "Ideological cynicism in the modern information age with Sloterdijk and Žižek"; Eras Journal vol18no1; LCA-BP~ Thus, the alternative is to embrace radical nihilism. Capitalism engages in unending reproduction, so a drainage of excess solves. A society that maintains capitalist production is contingent upon subjects that are forced to labor under hyperreality – so we let the system collapse in on itself. The K is condo, not a floating pik, can't be used to take out theory, and you need to generate offense on the kritik flow to win the round. You can also win by generating offense (e.g. link turns). There is no pre-fiat offense independently emerging from the kritik. CX checks any further specifictyBaudrillard 3 ~Jean; Simulacra and Simulation; Sociologist/Philosopher, cool dude; 1981; University of Michigan Press; LCA-BP~ | 12/19/21 |
JF-K-Baudrillard v2Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Aashir Sanjrani 1The affirmative commodifies space in a way that reinvents simulation on an astronomical scale; exploration inevitably creates more signs and signifiersBaudrillard 91 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Science Fiction Studies, November '91pesh-anika We lose all hope of reality through the excess of unverifiable information caused by the rapid multiplication of signs – removing pieces doesn't solve.Gao 16, Liyan Gao. "Ideological cynicism in the modern information age with Sloterdijk and Žižek." The system of the fourth order simulacra kills meaning and thrives off of the manifestation and reproduction of violence, leaving subjects within in a constant state of depression when questions of truth can no longer be answered. Doubt plagues the subject and they are subsequently subjugated to the will of simulation.Robinson 12 ~Andrew; political theorist / activist; "Jean Baudrillard: Hyperreality and Implosion"; Ceasefire Magazine, 8-10-2012, https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-9/~~ Thus, the alternative is to embrace radical nihilism. Capitalism engages in unending reproduction; only a drainage of excess solves: drain propped up ideals, drain the death grip of semiocapitalism. A society that maintains capitalist production is contingent upon subjects that are forced to labor under semiocapitalism – so we let the system collapse in on itself. It's dispo, I'll kick it if you weigh the aff. It is not a PIK. Spec anything else in cxBaudrillard 81 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Simulacra and Simulation, 1981pesh-anika The world fundamentally rests on the logic of (in)difference, in which origins are simultaneously unlocatable and everywhere all at once. The proliferation of communication under late stage capitalism washes up and crashes on the rocks of truth and falsity, eroding meaning at its shores. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best ruptures hyperreality.Baudrillard 1 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorist, true sweetheart, "Fatal Strategies"; LCA-BP~ *edited for lang | 2/12/22 |
JF-NC-KantTournament: Strake | Round: 2 | Opponent: Woodlands TS | Judge: Nelson Okunlala Kant NCFrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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.And, reason must be universal –~A~ 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.==== ~B~ 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 othersThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of them~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 familyOffense1~ The conclusion of Kant's moral philosophy is political libertarianismOtteson 09 ~(James R., professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter, 2009~ TDI 2~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI 3~ Private entities utilize their own property and resources to fund and conduct space exploration which means – Prohibition of it is a violation of a). Their ability to use their own property(like their rocketships or fuel) to set their ends in space and b). Their freedom to explore unknown horizons such as space. | 12/18/21 |
JF-NC-Kant v2Tournament: Strake | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Andrew Qin 2FrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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~ 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.==== ~B~ 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 othersThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of themOffense1~ The conclusion of Kant's moral philosophy is political libertarianismOtteson 09 ~(James R., professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter, 2009~ TDI 2~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI 3~ Private entities utilize their own property and resources to fund and conduct space exploration which means – Prohibition of it is a violation of a). Their ability to use their own property(like their rocketships or fuel) to set their ends in space and b). Their freedom to explore unknown horizons such as space. | 12/18/21 |
JF-NC-Kant v3Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake CH | Judge: Spiro Hoxha 1FrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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.And, reason must be universal –~A~ 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.==== ~B~ 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 othersThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of them~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~ 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.Offense1~ The conclusion of Kant's moral philosophy is political libertarianismOtteson 09 ~(James R., professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter, 2009~ TDI 2~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI 3~ Private entities utilize their own property and resources to fund and conduct space exploration which means – Prohibition of it is a violation of a). Their ability to use their own property(like their rocketships or fuel) to set their ends in space and b). Their freedom to explore unknown horizons such as space. | 1/15/22 |
JF-NC-Kant v4Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard LH | Judge: Arun Mehra, Joseph Georges, Holden Bukowksky 2FrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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.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.And, reason must be universal –~A~ 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.==== ~B~ 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 othersThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of them~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 familyOffense1~ The conclusion of Kant's moral philosophy is political libertarianismOtteson 09 ~(James R., professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter, 2009~ TDI 2~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI 3~ Private entities utilize their own property and resources to fund and conduct space exploration which means – Prohibition of it is a violation of a). Their ability to use their own property(like their rocketships or fuel) to set their ends in space and b). Their freedom to explore unknown horizons such as space. | 1/16/22 |
ND-DA-BizConTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 1 | Opponent: Oak Grove FK | Judge: Dannise Brown 2Business confidence is high now and is leading to economic growthConference Board 5/19 Conference Board. "The Conference Board Measure of CEO Confidence™." CEO Confidence Hit All-Time High in Q2 | The Conference Board, 19 May 2021, www.conference-board.org/research/CEO-Confidence/. A shift towards pro union policies and helping bargaining power during worker strikes cause businesses to fail and undermine confidence due to a sudden shift left by the current administration.John DiNardo University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and NBER David S. Lee UC Berkeley and NBER https://www.princeton.edu/~~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf Business confidence dictates growthMcQuarie 16 McQuarie, Economic risk consulting firm, 5 factors that impact business and consumer confidence, 25 May 2016 https://www.macquarie.com/au/advisers/expertise/market-insights/business-consumer-confidence-australia TR Econ decline definetly causes Nuclear WarTønnesson 15 Stein Tønnesson, PhD from the University of Oslo, is research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO), adjunct professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research,Uppsala University where he leads a six-year research programme on the East AsianPeace, associate editor for Asia in the Journal of Peace Research, International Area Studies Review, 2015, Vol. 18(3), "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace", 297–311 | 12/10/21 |
ND-DA-InnovationTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 5 | Opponent: Cabot JO | Judge: Daniel Ciocca 3Global Innovation is high now despite bumps from COVID.UN 21 9-20-2021 "Innovation continued despite COVID-19: New UN report" https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1100362 (United Nations)Elmer The Aff increases Union Power via Collective Bargaining - stronger Union Power decrease Innovation.Bradley 17, Daniel, Incheol Kim, and Xuan Tian. "Do unions affect innovation?." Management Science 63.7 (2017): 2251-2271. (Department of Finance, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida)Elmer The US is uniquely pre-disposed to drive innovation growth – 5 reasonsShapiro 16 Gary Shapiro 1-8-2016 "5 Reasons the U.S. Is Great for Innovation" https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2016-01-08/5-reasons-the-us-is-great-for-innovation (president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of The New York Times best-selling books "Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World's Most Successful Businesses" and "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.")Elmer Strong Innovation solves Extinction.Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 "How to help people millions of years from now" https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer | 12/11/21 |
ND-K-BaudrillardTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann 2Strikes act as revolutionary behavior that reify systems of domination – a cruel game where the Revolutionary sees itself as mobilized when it is unknowingly restrained into reproducing the system.Baudrillard 81 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Simulacra and Simulation, 1981pesh-anika- The proliferation of signs has left strikes meaningless; strikes are engaging in orchestrated social and political relations that operate for contemporary capitalism, rendering them futileBaudrillard 76 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Symbolic Exchange and Death, 1976pesh-anika We lose all hope of reality through the excess of unverifiable information caused by the rapid multiplication of signs – removing pieces doesn't solve.Gao 16, Liyan Gao. "Ideological cynicism in the modern information age with Sloterdijk and Žižek." Thus, the alt is to embrace radical nihilism. Capitalism engages in unending reproduction; thus we need to drain of propped up ideals. A society that maintains capitalist production is contingent upon subjects that are forced to labor – so we let the system collapse in on itself.Baudrillard 4 ~Jean; Simulacra and Simulation; Sociologist/Philosopher, cool dude; 1981; University of Michigan Press; LCA-BP~ The world fundamentally rests on the logic of (in)difference, in which origins are simultaneously unlocatable and everywhere all at once. The proliferation of communication under late stage capitalism washes up and crashes on the rocks of truth and falsity, eroding meaning at its shores. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best ruptures hyperreality.Baudrillard 1 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorist, true sweetheart, "Fatal Strategies"; LCA-BP~ *edited for lang | 12/4/21 |
ND-K-WeheliyeTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same Vishnu that I was 10 years ago, which proves personal evolution.Affect is constitutive: it is the capacity to experience and to be experienced. I am experiencing my laptop, my opponent, just as much as you are experiencing me. There is no way any person or thing can escape affection.Fluidity determines the subject: because affect and instability ensure that subjects always change, the only intrinsic feature of the subject is that everything remains in flux. Emphasis on particular aspects of subjectivity only drives division in the proletariat.1AC's legal incorporation of subjects through state engagement ensures an outside of personhood – legal incorporation sustains hierarchies as it determines who is or isn't a legitimate person – diving people into different categories of human, subhuman, and non-human.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The legal recognition of a right to strike recreates the conditions of juridical humanity where the state dictates who is or isn't worthy of the state's generosity through receiving rights. This forced assimilation perpetuates neocolonial mindsets and terminates in racialized violence and genocide.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Focusing on legal integration reinforces the western Man by forcing groups the beg for empathy and degrade themselves for simple rights. It encourages infighting – a bourgeois strategy that forces oppression olympics while affirming political violence.Weheliye 3 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ By emphasizing the distinctions between humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans, whiteness becomes viewed as Truth and the bar at which everyone is compared in the color line. The color line emphasizes phenotypical distinctions as the standard for which bodies enter spaces of liminality.Wynter 03 ~Sylvia Wynter, Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument. The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 2003. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 Dulles VN~ *bracketed for clarity* The alternative is habeas viscus. We reconfigure our view of the human to be framed by flesh instead of the legal body to focus on affective bonds. By synthesizing our experiences and identities, we can embrace liminality to better strategize and dismantle systems of oppression while emphasizing collective action and collaboration.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Subjects are gridded against the legal system to be surveilled by the state, which mandates a precondition to rights: are you oppressed enough to deserve equality? Even when the state affirms the rights of white, cis, wealthy gay men, it oppresses gender nonconforming, indigenous, queers. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct western Man.Weheliye 5 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ | 11/20/21 |
ND-K-Weheliye v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1NC – K (CONDO)The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same Vishnu that I was 10 years ago, which proves personal evolution.Affect is constitutive: it is the capacity to experience and to be experienced. I am experiencing my laptop, my opponent, just as much as you are experiencing me. There is no way any person or thing can escape affection.Fluidity determines the subject: because affect and instability ensure that subjects always change, the only intrinsic feature of the subject is that everything remains in flux. Emphasis on particular aspects of subjectivity only drives division in the proletariat.1AC's legal incorporation of subjects through state engagement ensures an outside of personhood – legal incorporation sustains hierarchies as it determines who is or isn't a legitimate person – diving people into different categories of human, subhuman, and non-human.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The legal recognition of a right to strike recreates the conditions of juridical humanity where the state dictates who is or isn't worthy of the state's generosity through receiving rights. This forced assimilation perpetuates neocolonial mindsets and terminates in racialized violence and genocide.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ By emphasizing the distinctions between humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans, whiteness becomes viewed as Truth and the bar at which everyone is compared in the color line. The color line emphasizes phenotypical distinctions as the standard for which bodies enter spaces of liminality.Wynter 03 ~Sylvia Wynter, Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument. The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 2003. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 Dulles VN~ *bracketed for clarity* The alternative is habeas viscus. We reconfigure our view of the human to be framed by flesh instead of the legal body to focus on affective bonds. By synthesizing our experiences and identities, we can embrace liminality to better strategize and dismantle systems of oppression while emphasizing collective action and collaboration.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Subjects are gridded against the legal system to be surveilled by the state, which mandates a precondition to rights: are you oppressed enough to deserve equality? Even when the state affirms the rights of white, cis, wealthy gay men, it oppresses gender nonconforming, indigenous, queers. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct western Man.Weheliye 5 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ | 11/21/21 |
ND-K-Weheliye v3Tournament: Isidore Newman | Round: Octas | Opponent: Bridgeland PT | Judge: Taj Robinson Amanda Ciocca J Hammon 21NC – KThe subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same Vishnu that I was 10 years ago, which proves personal evolution.Affect is constitutive: it is the capacity to experience and to be experienced. I am experiencing my laptop, my opponent, just as much as you are experiencing me. There is no way any person or thing can escape affection.Fluidity determines the subject: because affect and instability ensure that subjects always change, the only intrinsic feature of the subject is that everything remains in flux. Emphasis on particular aspects of subjectivity only drives division in the proletariat.1AC's legal incorporation of subjects through state engagement ensures an outside of personhood – legal incorporation sustains hierarchies as it determines who is or isn't a legitimate person – diving people into different categories of human, subhuman, and non-human.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The legal recognition of a right to strike recreates the conditions of juridical humanity where the state dictates who is or isn't worthy of the state's generosity through receiving rights. This forced assimilation perpetuates neocolonial mindsets and terminates in racialized violence and genocide.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The alternative is habeas viscus. We reconfigure our view of the human to be framed by flesh instead of the legal body to focus on affective bonds. By synthesizing our experiences and identities, we can embrace liminality to better strategize and dismantle systems of oppression while emphasizing collective action and collaboration.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Subjects are gridded against the legal system to be surveilled by the state, which mandates a precondition to rights: are you oppressed enough to deserve equality? Even when the state affirms the rights of white, cis, wealthy gay men, it oppresses gender nonconforming, indigenous, queers. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct western Man.Weheliye 5 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ | 12/12/21 |
ND-NC-ContractsTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Mohammah Khattak Phoenix Pittman Daniel Shatzkin NCFrameworkI value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1. Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point. Markovits 14, Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa Relatedly, internalism about reasons seems less presumptive than externalism. We should not assume that some of us have special epistemic access to what matters, especially in the absence of any criterion for making such a judgment. It's better to start from the assumption, as internalism does, that everyone's ends are equally worthy of pursuit – and correct this assumption only by appealing to standards that are as uncontroversial as possible. According to externalism about reasons, what matters normatively – that is, what we have reason to do or pursue or protect or respect or promote – does not depend in any fundamental way on what in fact matters to us – that is, what we do do and pursue and protect and respect and promote. Some of us happen to be motivated by what actually matters, and some of us are "wrongly" motivated. But externalists can offer no explanation for cthis supposed difference in how well we respond to reasons – no explanation of why some of us have the right motivations and some of us the wrong ones – that doesn't itself appeal to the views about what matters that they're trying to justify. (They can explain why some people have the right motivations by saying, e.g., that they're good people, but that assumes the truth of the normative views that are at issue.22) A comparison to the epistemic case helps bring out what is unsatisfactory in the externalist position. We sometimes attribute greater epistemic powers to some people than to others despite not being able to explain why they're more likely to be right in their beliefs about a certain topic. Chicken-sexing is a popular example of this among philosophers. We think some people are more likely to form true beliefs about the sex of chickens than others even though we can't explain why they are better at judging the sex of chickens. But in the case of chicken-sexing, we have independent means of determining the truth, and so we have independent verification that chicken-sexers usually get things right. Externalism seems to tell~s~ us that some of us are better reasons- sensors than others, but without providing the independent means of determining which of us are in fact more reliably motivated by genuine normative reasons (or even that some of us are).2. Motivation – A) Externalist notions of ethics collapse to internal since the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that's generated from it B) Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agents' motivations are unique and there has been no conversion of differing beliefs into a unified ethic.Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It's a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good. Gauthier 98, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Fortunately, I do not have to defend normative foundationalism. One problem with accepting moral justification as part of our ongoing practice is that, as I have suggested, we no longer accept the world view on which it depends. But perhaps a more immediately pressing problem is that we have, ready to hand, an alternative mode for justifying our choices and actions. In its more austere and, in my view, more defensible form, this is to show that choices and actions maximize the agent 's expected utility, where utility is a measure of considered preference. In its less austere version, this is to show that choices and actions satisfy, not a subjectively defined requirement such as utility, but meet the agent ' s objective interests. Since I do not believe that we have objective interests, I shall ignore this latter. But it will not matter. For the idea is clear; we have a mode of justification that does not require the introduction of moral considerations. 11 Let me call this alternative nonmoral mode of justification, neutrally, deliberative justification. Now moral and deliberative justification are directed at the same objects – our choices and actions. What if they conflict? And what do we say to the person who offers a deliberative justification of his choices and actions and refuses to offer any other? We can say, of course, that his behavior lacks moral justification, but this seems to lack any hold, unless he chooses to enter the moral framework. And such entry, he may insist, lacks any deliberative justification, at least for him. If morality perishes, the justificatory enterprise, in relation to choice and action, does not perish with it. Rather, one mode of justification perishes, a mode that, it may seem, now hangs unsupported. But not only unsupported, for it is difficult to deny that deliberative justification is more clearly basic, that it cannot be avoided insofar as we are rational agents, so that if moral justification conflicts with it, morality seems not only unsupported but opposed by what is rationally more fundamental. Deliberative justification relates to our deep sense of self. What distinguishes human beings from other animals, and provides the basis for rationality, is the capacity for semantic representation. You can, as your dog on the whole cannot, represent a state of affairs to yourself, and consider in particular whether or not it is the case, and whether or not you would want it to be the case. You can represent to yourself the contents of your beliefs, and your desires or preferences. But in representing them, you bring them into relation with one another. You represent to yourself that the Blue Jays will win the World Series, and that a National League team will win the World Series, and that the Blue Jays are not a National League team. And in recognizing a conflict among those beliefs, you find rationality thrust upon you. Note that the first two beliefs could be replaced by preferences, with the same effect. Since in representing our preferences we become aware of conflict among them, the step from representation to choice becomes complicated. We must, somehow, bring our conflicting desires and preferences into some sort of coherence. And there is only one plausible candidate for a principle of coherence – a maximizing principle. We order our preferences, in relation to decision and action, so that we may choose in a way that maximizes our expectation of preference fulfillment. And in so doing, we show ourselves to be rational agents, engaged in deliberation and deliberative justification. There is simply nothing else for practical rationality to be. The foundational crisis of morality thus cannot be avoided by pointing to the existence of a practice of justification within the moral framework, and denying that any extramoral foundation is relevant. For an extramoral mode of justification is already present, existing not side by side with moral justification, but in a manner tied to the way in which we unify our beliefs and preferences and so acquire our deep sense of self. We need not suppose that this deliberative justification is itself to be understood foundationally. All that we need suppose is that moral justification does not plausibly survive conflict with it.Since agents take their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties' consent to in order to regulate behavior.Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility – Contracts are key to a) Encompassing all other ethical calculus into our decision since we process the consistency of those frameworks with our self interest and b) Value pluralism – recognizing a singular ethic fails to account for the complexity of moral problems and genuine moral disagreement. My framework solves since we can recognize multiple legitimate values while allowing individuals to exclude ones that are bad.2. Bindingness – A) Arising of Ethics – Every interaction with another agent is mediated by consent to participate in that interaction since otherwise agents could simply leave, which means there is an implicit social contract formed in every ethical interaction and B) Culpability – Only contracts can ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their action as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it.Theoretically prefer contracts –1. Legal Education – Contracts are key to understanding the legal system since it's a major part of the law; understanding what makes a good contract and how to properly form one is good for preparing students for legal agreements, ensuring they aren't taken advantage of. Legal education o/w since the law affects everything you do in life since the law is intrinsic to all our actions.2. Small Schools – Contracts doesn't require large amounts of prep because you can use analytics and most of the arguments required are public knowledge that won't exist behind paywalls since news outlets do most of the legal analysis for the public. That's key to small school inclusion since consequentialism requires large amounts of prep and the best policy experts publish their work behind government paywalls.ContentionI contend a just government ought not guarantee an unconditional right to strikeNegate:1~ Unconditional striking breaches no-strike contracts and the conditions under which contracts allow strikes.NLRB National Labor Relations Board. "The Right to Strike." The Right to Strike | National Labor Relations Board, www.nlrb.gov/strikes. 2~ Unconditional right to strike is impossible since workers agree to certain conditions on strikes when they form a work contract with their employers. If they disagree with the conditions in the contract then they should renegotiate or pick a different employer.3~ Self-Interest – States each have their own unique reasons for not recognizing the right of workers to strike and forcing them to do so would be imposing an external principle disregarding each individual position – which would be an intrinsic wrong under the framework. | 12/12/21 |
ND-NC-HobbesTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Garland DA | Judge: Nevin Gera 1The material world holds no normative truths– if I see a tree, then I can see that is obviously a tree, but the natural world does not tell us that that is what a tree is. Rather, we are the creators of our own meaning, and we derive ethics on our own and by sharing meaning with others. Since our empirical experiences in the world are egoistic, we always experience the world in our own point of view, furthering self-interest.This search for power and advantages allows us to create meaning, but that meaning will always be formed in our own self-interest. This makes violent conflict and the will to dominate over others in the state of nature inevitable.Parrish 1 Rick Parrish; "Derrida's Economy of Violence in Hobbes' Social Contract"; Pgs. 4-5. 2004 Violence occurs because people lack objective authority to which we can appeal in resolving disagreements since the individual is self-interested. However, violence is in itself an internal contradiction– other people, from their perspectives, are also meaning creators opposed to you, and you are also a meaning creator.Thus, only the sovereign can be the third-party arbitrator which eliminates conflict by restricting individuals' self-interest and creating a unified moral code. There is no genuine morality absent what the sovereign wills.Parrish 2 Rick Parrish; "Derrida's Economy of Violence in Hobbes' Social Contract"; Pgs. 4-5. 2004 1~ Bindingness: Only the sovereign is able to get everyone to follow their rule and enforce the law, it creates motivations for any moral rules we create. Otherwise, the framework collapses and truth becomes impossible2~ Weighability: this framework is just a question of whether or not you're consistent with the sovereign's will3~ Inclusion: Hobbes is mainly analytic so it doesn't require a ton of topic prep which is good for accessibility for small-school debaters.Now negate:~1~ Legislation – Strikes undermine the sovereigns' ability to legislate since it's subjects can place infinite demands on it and undermine its legitimacy~2~ Autonomy – you can't place an obligation onto the sovereign or force it to recognize something it doesn't already recognize.~3~ Self Defense – the right to strike would weaken the power of the state since it would force the sovereign to recognize revolts that oppose it. | 12/4/21 |
ND-NC-KantTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Andrew Qin 1FrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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~ 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.==== ~B~ 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.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of themContention1~Strikes fail to fulfill dutyFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG 2~ Uses others as a mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG 3~ Kantianism requires negative responsibility, as anything is legitimate until there is a reason not to allow it. For example, I don't have to justify why I should be able to toss a pen, I can just do it. This makes prohibiting inaction impossible because it is structurally impossible to be held culpable for omissions under Kant since agents would always be categorically condemned in the instance of tradeoffs. That means even if strikes are good in abstract, governments recognizing them is a positive responsibility which isn't offense under Kant.4~ The process of strike uses patients or beneficiaries of work as a means to an endHoward 20 ~Danielle Howard Mar 2020, "What Should Physicians Consider Prior to Unionizing?," Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-should-physicians-consider-prior-unionizing/2020-03 LEX JB~ AND 5~ Going on strike isn't universalizable – a) if everyone leaves work then there will be no concept of a job b) everyone means the employer even leaves which is a contradiction in contraception7~Contracts – employers and employees have contracts which do not include / do not grant workers to strike. Granting workers to strike is a violation of those companies' contracts, which ow under my fwk since it's a breaking of a contract., that negates under kant b/c breaking a contract is lying which is non universalizable9~The right to strike implies a right to coercion which is a contradiction in conception.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying 11~Prohibiting coercion doesn't solve- It makes the right to strike conditional. | 11/21/21 |
ND-T-NebelTournament: Isidore Newman | Round: Octas | Opponent: Bridgeland PT | Judge: Taj Robinson Amanda Ciocca J Hammon 1Interpretation: Interpretation: "workers" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend that a just government recognizes a specific group of workers unconditional right to strikeviolation: they specified a specific group of workerNebel, 19 – (Jake Nebel, studies Philosophy at Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship, destroyed LD debate, Vbriefly, 08-12-19, "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution", https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/) It applies to workers – 1~ upward entailment test – "a just government ought to reduce protections for _" doesn't entail that governmentss ought to reduce protections for teachers 2~ adverb test – adding "always" to the res doesn't substantially change its meaning because the right to strike is unconditional.Violation: they spec ~x~Standards:~1~ Precision and semantics outweigh – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff nobody affirmed~2~ Limits – their model allows affs to defend anything from teachers to doctors to the police — there's no universal DA since each has different implications – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations.~3~ TVA solves – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all your offenseFairness, competing interps, no rvis, dtd | 12/12/21 |
SO-CP-WHOTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez WHO says yes – it supports increasing the availability of generics and limiting TRIPS Consultation displays strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states which are key to WTO legitimacy WHO is critical to disease prevention – it is the only international institution that can disperse information, standardize global public health, and facilitate public-private cooperation | 10/16/21 |
SO-DA-Climate PatentsTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 2Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid Climate Patents are critical to solving Warming – only way to stimulate Renewable Energy Technology Investment.Aberdeen 20 Arielle Aberdeen October 2020 "Patents to climate rescue: how intellectual property rights are fundamental to the development of renewable energy" https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/4516/0399/1622/Intellectual_Property_and_Renewable_Energy.pdf (Caribbean Attorney-at-Law with extensive experience in legal research and writing.)Elmer Warming causes ExtinctionKareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer | 10/19/21 |
SO-DA-InfrastructureTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 3Biden's infrastructure bill will pass through reconciliation but absolute Dem Unity is key.Turns Structural Violence Pharma backlashes to the Plan – they're aggressive lobbyists and will do anything to preserve patent rights.Turns Case – Waters down the Plan due to lobbying They choose Infrastructure as backlash – they bill costs Pharma millions – lobbyists can derail the Agenda.Brennan 8-2 Zachary Brennan 8-2-2021 "How the biopharma industry is helping to pay for the bipartisan infrastructure bill" https://endpts.com/how-the-biopharma-industry-is-helping-to-pay-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/ (Senior Editor at Endpoint News)Elmer Democrat Senators in Big Pharma's pocket derails the Plan.Sirota 8-23 David Sirota 8-23-2021 "Dem Obstructionists Are Bankrolled By Pharma And Oil" https://www.dailyposter.com/dem-obstructionists-are-bankrolled-by-pharma-and-oil/ (an American journalist, columnist at The Guardian, and editor for Jacobin. He is also a political commentator and radio host based in Denver. He is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, political spokesperson, and blogger)Elmer Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over.USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/ Elmer | 10/16/21 |
SO-NC-Funny silly goofyTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 1To find truth, we must doubt everything. Prefer:~1~ Philosophers have been arguing over morality for thousands of years with no progress which proves we're not close to the truth so restarting from the bottom is key to accurate determination of truth.~2~ Logic – if we argue based on unjustified assumptions, then we are not being logical – logic key because we can only evaluate logical arguments.Sinnott-Armstrong 15 Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter, (Philosopher), "Moral Skepticism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17/9/15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/~~#MorExp. LHP AVThe final kind of argument derives from René Descartes (1641). I do not seem justified in believing that what I see is a lake if I cannot rule out the possibility that it is a bay or a bayou. Generalizing, if there is any contrary hypothesis that I cannot rule out, then I am not justified in believing that what I see is a lake. This is supposed to be a common standard for justified belief. When this principle is applied thoroughly, it leads to skepticism. All a skeptic needs to show is that, for each belief, there is some contrary hypothesis that cannot be ruled out. It need not be the same hypothesis for every belief, but skeptics usually buy wholesale instead of retail, so they seek a single hypothesis that is contrary to all (or many common) beliefs and which cannot be ruled out in any way. ~3~ Theory – Defending theories with illogical assumptions guts predictability since any possible wrong thing can emerge that we aren't prepared to contest.Thus, the aff must make 100 sure they're right to fulfill their burden or else you negate. Also, aff has an absolute burden of proof – any doubt means you negate since a claim not that claim can't be true so any risk of falsity is entirely false.Presumption and permissibility negate – a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways which outweighs on probability b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted which outweighs on empirics c) ought means the aff has to prove an obligation if that definition is legitimate which means lack of that obligation negates. Even under comparing worlds these arguments negate since it requires them to prove the statement that "the aff world is more desirable than the neg world" true. However, my args deny their ability to prove statements true so you presume neg. Also, I don't need to win presumption to win, I just need to win any of the arguments below because the aff is false, not just no offense and if I'm textual I'm fair because the topic is the most predictable, so you could've engaged and I deny the truth of the res by disagreeing that its true and exists so I've met my burden.A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Prefer on neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it's predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition. Also, better since it focuses on real world instances rather than recycling old frameworks and evaluate after the 1N so we both have one speech which is key to reciprocity.Negate:~Negate –2~ of is to "expressing an age" but the rez doesn't delineate a length of time3~ the is "denoting a disease or affliction" but the WTO isn't a disease4~ to is to "expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)" but the rez doesn't have a location5~ reduce is to "(of a person) lose weight, typically by dieting" but IP doesn't have a body to lose weight.6~ for is "in place of" but medicines aren't replacing IP.7~ medicine is "(especially among some North American Indian peoples) a spell, charm, or fetish believed to have healing, protective, or other power" but you can't have IP for a spell.~8~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn't logically going to happen, and fairness is terminally unquantifiable.~9~ In order to say I want to fix x problem, you must say that you want x problem to exist, since it requires the problem exist to solve, which makes any moral attempt inherently immoral.~10~ To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance ad infinitum – thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in finite time and theory is paradoxical since it uses arguments to justify being unable to make arguments~11~ Rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation.~12~ In order to find the answer to a question, you must ask if there is an answer, otherwise asking the question is pointless, but that requires asking whether or not there's an answer to that question and so forth ad infinitum – this means the quest for knowledge fails and the acquisition of truth is impossible – negate since we can't ensure resolutional truth value.~13~ you can't be sure anything besides yourself exists – we could be deceived by a demon, dreaming, or in a simulation so the whole world could be nonexistent and text over spirit because it's the only verifiable metric and key to set long term interp norms.~14~ Solipsism is true—overwhelming mathematical probability provesCarroll 13 ~Sean Carroll (Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics) "The Higgs Boson vs. Boltzmann Brains" August 22nd 2013 Preposterous Universe http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/the-higgs-boson-vs-boltzmann-brains/ JW 1/22/15~ | 9/11/21 |
SO-NC-KantTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 2The 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 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 considerations2~ 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.And, reason must be universal –~A~ 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.==== ~B~ 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. 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's 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- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of themOffenseReducing IP is a form of free-riding that fails the universality test, but also uses the creators of the medicine as means to an end.Dyke 18 Dyke, Raymond. "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting - IPWatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 1 Oct. 2018, www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/.dhsNJ IP protections are consistent with libertarian theories of propertyZeidman 16 Zeidman, Bob. "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System - Ipwatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 5 Jan. 2016, www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/.dhsNJ | 10/19/21 |
SO-NC-Kant v2Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 3 | Opponent: Denton Guyer SB | Judge: Javier Navarette 2FrameworkThe 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 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 considerations2~ 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~ 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.==== ~B~ 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.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's 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~ 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~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of them~4~ If reasoners capable of setting and pursuing our own ends, that means we don't have free will which would kill any conception of morality since it only exists in opposition to immorality, if there is only one action, then it can be moral. That o/ws obligations assume that you can do otherwise, else action isn't moral just constitutive.Norwitz.~Michael Norwitz, "Free Will and Determinism," Philosophy Now, 1991.~ SHS ZSInwagen presents three premises in his main argument: that free will is in fact incompatible with determinism, that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism, and that (since we have moral responsibility) determinism is false. Hence, he concludes, we have free will. The argument for the first premise runs as follows ~p.56~: "If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us." The argument for the second premise ~p. 181~: "If OffenseReducing IP is a form of free-riding that fails the universality test, but also uses the creators of the medicine as means to an end.Dyke 18 Dyke, Raymond. "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting - IPWatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 1 Oct. 2018, www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/.dhsNJ IP protections are consistent with libertarian theories of propertyZeidman 16 Zeidman, Bob. "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System - Ipwatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 5 Jan. 2016, www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/.dhsNJ | 10/19/21 |
SO-NC-PollsTournament: Grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Joey Georges | 9/11/21 |
SO-T-LeslieTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1Interpretation: The Aff must defend an IP reduction for all medicines.Leslie 12 Leslie, Sarah-Jane. "Generics." In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge, 2012. https://www.princeton.edu/~~sjleslie/RoutledgeHandbookEntryGenerics.pdf SM It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "nations ought to reduce protections for medicines" doesn't entail that nations ought to reduce protections for chemicals 2~ adverb test – adding "always" to the res doesn't substantially change its meaning because a reduction is universal.Violation: women's health medicinesStandards:~1~ Precision and semantics outweigh – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits – their model allows affs to defend anything from morgellons to progeria to the Mad Cow disease— there's no universal DA since each has different side effects and geopolitical implications – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations.~3~ TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves all your offenseVoters- | 10/16/21 |
SO-T-ReduceTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 11~ Interpretation - Reduce means permanent reduction – it's distinct from "waive" or "suspend."Reynolds 59 (Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Waiver is temporary.Green 5/6 ~Andrew Green (Devex Contributing Reporter based in Berlin, his coverage focuses primarily on health and human rights and he has previously worked as Voice of America's South Sudan bureau chief and the Center for Public Integrity's web editor). "US backs waiver for intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines". Devex. 06 May 2021. Accessed 7/31/2021. https://www.devex.com/news/us-backs-waiver-for-intellectual-property-rights-for-covid-19-vaccines-99847 Xu~ 2~ Violation – the plan waives intellectual property protections "during pandemics", which is an suspension – don't let them get We Meets since their Plan defends a waiver.3~ Vote neg for limits and neg ground – re-instatement under any infinite number of conditions doubles aff ground – every plan becomes either temporary or permanent – you cherry-pick the best criteria and I must prep every aff while they avoid core topic discussions like reduction-based DAs which decks generics like Pharma Innovation and Bio-Tech.4~ TVA solves – permanently reduce COVID patents.5~ Paradigm Issues –a~ Topicality is Drop the Debater – it's a fundamental baseline for debate-ability.b~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can't be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.c~ No RVI's - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.1nc theory before 1ar theory- they were abusive first, irreparably skewed every speech | 10/19/21 |
SO-Theory-Spec IP ReductionsTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 11~ Interpretation: The affirmative must specify which intellectual property rights they reduceIntellectual Property is a vague, meaningless term – there's no normal means.Chopra 18, Samir. "The Idea of Intellectual Property Is Nonsensical and Pernicious: Aeon Essays." Aeon, Aeon Magazine, 12 Nov. 2018, aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-nonsensical-and-pernicious. Samir Choprais professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. He is the author of several books, including A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents (2011), co-authored with Laurence White.sid 2~ Violation: they don't3~ Standardsa~ Shiftiness – vague plan wording wrecks Neg Ground since it's impossible to know which DAs link or which CPs are competitive since different IP's have different implications – absent 1AC specification, the 1AR can squirrel out of links by saying they don't effect a certain protection or they don't reduce IP enough to trigger the link.Independently vote Negative on Presumption since the Aff gets struck down for being void-for-vagueness since they don't have an explanation of what is reduced or remaining after the Plan.Singer 10 Bill Singer 9-13-2010 "Yo, Congress, Keep On Truckin' — Can You Dig It?" http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blogandid=554 (Bill Singer is a lawyer who represents securities-industry firms, individual registered persons, Wall Street whistleblowers, and defrauded public investors. For over three decades, Singer has represented clients before the American Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly the NASD), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and in criminal investigations brought by various federal, state, and local prosecutors. Before entering the private practice of law, Singer was employed in the Legal Department of Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Co.; as a regulatory attorney with both the American Stock Exchange and the NASD (now FINRA); and as a Legal Counsel to Integrated Resources Asset Management. Singer was formerly Chief Counsel to the Financial Industry Association; General Counsel to the NASD Dissidents' Grassroots Movement; and General Counsel to the Independent Broker-Dealer Association. He was registered for a number of years as a Series 7 and Series 63 stockbroker.)Elmer b~ Topic Education – nuanced debates about IP requires specification since each form of IPR has specific issues related to it so generalization disincentivizes in-depth research. Topic Education outweighs since we only debate the topic for two months.Fairness is a voter since it's debate is a game so it's a jurisdictional question and sequencing to evaluating any other argument in the debate.Reductions Spec isn't regressive – it's a core discussion central to the literature, we've read a card proving predictability, and is a floor for topic debates.~Paradigm Issues~ –~AT CX Checks~ – CX doesn't check - 1~ Skews pre-round prep – key to in-depth clash, 2~ Judges don't flow CX, 3~ Unverifiable and Irresolvable, 4~ Skews CX Time since it forces me to clarify rather than pursue lines of argumentation, and 5~ Allows them to change advocacy based on what my CX questions are which irreparably skews my Neg Strat.~DTD~ – Reduction is DTD since a~ can't drop an absence of something and b~ it's a necessary floor for debate-ability since the damage is irreparable.~Competing Interps~ – Reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.~No RVI's~ – 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.~Comes above 1AR Theory~ – 1NC Theory outweighs on scope cause 1AC abuse effects every speech – we had to be abusive since the 1AC was abusive first. | 10/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/20/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/10/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/12/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/12/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/12/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
|