Dulles Nataraja Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyola | 2 | Diamond Bar NC | Jason Lan |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Honor AP | Ronak Ahuja |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 1ac- evergreen |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja 1ac- Rhetorical Decolonization |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
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. | 9/4/21 |
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 |
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 –1~ Merriam Webster defines 'member' as: "PENIS "but an organ can't have obligations2~ 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~ | 9/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
|