| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 2 | MooWal HJ | Kishan Kalaria |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 3 | JosPla JB | Abhinav Sinha |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 5 | WesErd PS | Tej Gedela |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Finals | TraRob RS | Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Octas | WesErd JW | Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Doubles | AzbKal AX | Rohit Lakshman, Jayanne Forest, Sam Azbel |
|
|
| |
| Any | Finals | Any | Any |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 2 | Garland AA | Grant Chmielewski |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Clements AK | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Octas | Westwood AR | TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Quarters | Plano East JN | JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Semis | Strake Jesuit ZD | TJ Maher, Devin Hernandez, Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Doubles | Bergen County AK | Sreyaash Das, Joseph Georges, Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 1 | Byram Hills AK | Javier Navarrete |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 6 | Lynbrook SM | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 3 | Sequoia AS | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Acton-Boxborough AK | Barry Mitch |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Syosset LG | Matthew Slencsak, Curtis Chang, Ben Waldman |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Evergreen Valley SS | Calvin Tyler |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Finals | Stephen Scopa, Mariana Colicchio, Tajaih Robinson | Strake Jesuit JW |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 2 | Opponent: MooWal HJ | Judge: Kishan Kalaria 1AC - Kant |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha 1AC - Kant |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | 5 | Opponent: WesErd PS | Judge: Tej Gedela 1AC - Deleuze |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman 1AC - Cybernetics |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Octas | Opponent: WesErd JW | Judge: Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger 1AC - Teacher Unions |
| 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: AzbKal AX | Judge: Rohit Lakshman, Jayanne Forest, Sam Azbel 1AC - Deleuze |
| Any | Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Information |
| Grapevine Classic | 2 | Opponent: Garland AA | Judge: Grant Chmielewski 1AC - Lay |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Opponent: Clements AK | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Evergreening |
| Grapevine Classic | Octas | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin 1AC - Stock |
| Grapevine Classic | Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber 1AC - Race War |
| Grapevine Classic | Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit ZD | Judge: TJ Maher, Devin Hernandez, Jack Quisenberry 1AC - Black |
| Grapevine Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Bergen County AK | Judge: Sreyaash Das, Joseph Georges, Andrew Shaw 1AC - COVID |
| Loyola Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Javier Navarrete 1AC - Kant |
| Loyola Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Lynbrook SM | Judge: Truman Le 1AC - Opioids |
| Loyola Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - Cannabis |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Barry Mitch 1AC - Lay |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Matthew Slencsak, Curtis Chang, Ben Waldman 1AC - Deleuze |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Calvin Tyler 1AC - Impossible Bomb |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Finals | Opponent: Stephen Scopa, Mariana Colicchio, Tajaih Robinson | Judge: Strake Jesuit JW 1AC - COVID |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: Any | Round: Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tommy.yu.35325 0 = Information | 9/12/21 |
0 - DisclosureTournament: Any | Round: Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2020-21 NDCA LD wiki page, debaters must disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all possible disclosure theory interps on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki at least 30 minutes before the round. Interpretation: Interpretation: When asked, debaters must disclose whether or not they or their teammates have read any of the evidence in previous rounds in their “new affirmative” during disclosure 30 minutes before the round Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, they can’t put “see open source.” If verbatim is not working, debaters have to make a note on the wiki in cite box positions with entry titles disclosed. Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports that say which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Interpretation: All disclosed analytics must be at minimum a complete sentence containing an explanation of the warrant of the argument. To clarify, you can’t disclose single-word previews of analytics. Interpretation: If debaters disclose positions in cite boxes, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box but instead use the wikify function in verbatim. Interpretation: Debaters must, on the page with their name and the school they attend, disclose their contact information. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose tournaments on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki with a similar name to the tournament name on Tabroom for every round at said tournament. To clarify, when you look up the tournament name from the wiki on tab, the entry must pop up. Interpretation: Debaters must delineate on their wiki, if they do, who they prep with if the individual(s) are from a different school. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose their favorite thing about Jarvis Xie. My favorite is his admiration of me. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose whether they have a Smash Ultimate main, and if they do, who their main is. Mine is Palutena. | 9/12/21 |
0 - Wiki GlitchesTournament: Any | Round: Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any | 9/12/21 |
G - CP - BallotTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit ZD | Judge: TJ Maher, Devin Hernandez, Jack Quisenberry We advocate the 1AC without their call for the ballot. To clarify, this is a PIC out of their demand to "take this round hostage" and "blacken the debate space".Calls to "blacken debate" creates a parasitic and de-radicalized relationship to white recognition that turns case.Curry 13 Tommy Curry 2013, Professor of Philosophy at Texas AandM University, "Dr. Tommy Curry on the importance of debate for blacks," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmkPhvDK2E~~#t=174 Re-cut by Elmer AND have progressed fundamentally rooted in how white people see us is a problem. Hijacks King 17 – we’re a refusal of white recognition that separates resistance from liberal allyship. | 9/13/21 |
G - CP - RedactionTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber Text: Vote Neg to redact the 1AC - the CP does the aff but doesn't say itSolves the Aff – disclosing militant strategies leads to militant crackdowns and the fracturing of undercommon collectivity
The affirmative advocacy is the plasticization of blackness. They appropriate black suffering for the benefit of subjects within Civil Society. The impact is ontological slippage. Every and any non-black affirmation is anti-black and bad for our health.Jackson, Zakiyyah Iman. "Losing manhood: Animality and plasticity in the (neo) slave narrative." Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 25.1-2 (2016): 95-136. (Assistant professor of black feminist theory, literature, and criticism at George Mason University English Department)Wake AD but re-cut by Elmer AND a mode of domination and the unheimlich existence that is its result.33 | 9/12/21 |
G - CP - WominTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Calvin Tyler CP: Vote neg to endorse the aff without their spelling of "women" and replace it with "womin."WCCC 03 https://www.msu.edu/~~womyn/alternative.html Woman, Womyn, Wimyn, Womin, and Wimmin: Why the alternatives spellings? Womyn Creating Consciousness Collectively - Alternative Spellings WC3 is a Registered Student Organization at Michigan State University. This AND womin ourselves as we really are, not how men and society view them us, but through our own female views of ourselves, as self-defined womyn. Language is a necessary starting point of deconstruction of biases.Sani ‘13 ~Shehu Sani – Nigerian senator, an author, playwright and a human rights activist. He is President of the Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria - (CRCN). and the Chairman of Hand-in-Hand, Africa. He was a leading figure in the struggle for the restoration of democracy in Nigeria~ "Hatred for Black People" November 2013.~ MT – Recut AND and prove themselves through their use of language, either consciously or subconsciously | 9/19/21 |
G - NC - DeterminismTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Clements AK | Judge: Andrew Shaw We’re hijacking their framework - Consequentialism means determinism is true1~ Induction- if x action leads to y result then x action must be influenced by prior action which means a causal chain of events structure my action rather than my will2~ Focus on end states necessitates determinism because scientific models assume x will happen if y – anything else triggers permissibility3~ Psychology- Neuroscience has demonstrated that our internal cognition is deterministic. Make them provide a counter study- you shouldn’t trust the word of a high-schooler about neuroscienceButkus ~Matthew A. Butkus(Professor in the department of Philosophy at McNeese State University, PhD - Health Care Ethics Duquesne University, MA – Philosophy Duquesne University). "Free Will and Autonomous Medical Decision-Making." Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics. Volume 3, Issue 1. Pg 113-114. March 2015. Accessed 4/4/20. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89a4/924e0111035dbda63d61631a169c654a04fa.pdf Recut Houston Memorial DX from BHPE~ AND is congruent with the value system adopted by the agent as a whole. I defend the squo and that negates1~ Actions are predetermined which means we aren’t culpable for actions we don’t take | 9/11/21 |
G - NC - Evil DemonTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman I am Tommy, an evil demon from the Nether, and I have one goal: this ballot. I have taken over Roberto’s Body, Fear me and my threat. No rules will constrain me as the application of rules, even when justified, are not inherent.Langseth 1 This section shows that rules themselves do not determine how they are AND This is the case because any interpretation can be seen to be in accordance with a rule Roberto’s now under my control, I have hypnotized them during prep time and they are now my Puppet.To demonstrate this, I will make them do a couple of things.In the 1AR, they will make arguments about why you should vote me down and why you should vote them up. (I will also make them say they aren’t hypnotized) But know this: through telepathy, I have learned that their true intention was to lose this round;They planned to forfeit in the 1AR. It appears I didn’t need to hypnotize them in the first place. No amount of evidence can ever prove objective knowledge.Searle,1 You could have the best possible evidence about other people’s behavior and AND it is impossible to disprove the potentiality for any of these scenarios." Of course, I have no intention of keeping them as my puppet, (I have too many). When they say"I concede" and then stop speaking, then they will wake up and you will know they are no longer under my command. Until then, I am the puppet-master and I deem their actions immoral.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa AND precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule | 7/10/21 |
G - NC - Flat EarthTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Earth is flat – tons of warrants.Anti-Vaccine Scientific Support Arsenal 16 ~Anti-Vaccine Scientific Support Arsenal, 2-8-2016, "Top Ten Undeniable Proofs the Earth is Flat," FLAT EARTH SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE, https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/2016/02/08/top-ten-undeniable-flat-earth-proofs/~~ JS AND travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball. Flat earth flips existing all conceptions of science and society at large – this means you go neg on presumption because their presumptions are presumptiveDirtyOldAussie 17 ~DirtyOldAussie, 4-1-2017, "What are the true implications of a Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth? How else would our thinking change if it really was flat? • r/AskReddit," reddit, *this post was marked serious so it’s legit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/670rf6/what'are'the'true'implications'of'a'flat'earth'vs/~~ JS AND , airline pilots, space agencies, astronomers, ships captains and others. | 7/10/21 |
G - NC - LogConTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha The standard is consistency with the logical consequence of the resolution. Prefer this –1. Text – Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa 2. Debatability – a) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) Moral oughts cannot guide action due to the is/ought fallacy – we cannot derive moral obligations from what happens in the real world3. Neg definition choice – Anything else kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Their inherency proves the aff won’t happen. Either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) It is and it isn’t going to happen. | 7/8/21 |
G - NC - NibbleTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha 1~ Bonini’s Paradox – expanding debate’s parameters to the 1AR and onward makes the round irresolvable due to a lack of understanding so just vote negWikipedia ~Brackets Original. "Bonini's paradox". Wikipedia. No Date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonini27s'paradox Houston Memorial DX~ AND 6~ (See Orzack and Sober, 1993; Odenbaugh, 2006) 2~ Overthinking paradox- the 1AR is a form of unnecessary overthinking that prevents decisions to be made so don’t evaluate itWikipedia ~Brackets Original. "Analysis Paralysis". Wikipedia. No Date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonini27s'paradox~~ AND is making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut reaction. 3~ Vote neg because it’s simple – evaluating responses to this is complicated so don’tBaker 04’ ~Baker, Alan, 10-29-2004, "Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/~~ AND simplicity principle can be found in the quotations given earlier in this section. 4~ The holographic principle is the most reasonable conclusionStromberg 15~Joseph Stromberg- "Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched" https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics Vox. June 29th 2015~ War Room Debate AI AND all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally. 5~ Paradox of tolerance- to be completely open to the aff we must exclude perspectives that wouldn’t be open to the aff which means it’s impossible to have complete tolerance for an idea since that tolerance relies on excluding a perspective.6~ Decision Making Paradox- in order to decide to do the affirmative we need a decision-making procedure to enact it, vote for it, and to determine it is a good decision. But to chose a decision-making procedure requires another meta level decision making procedure leading to infinite regress since every decision requires another decision to chose how to make a decision.7~ The Place Paradox- if everything exists in a place in space time, that place must also have a place that it exists and that larger place needs a larger location to infinity. Therefore, identifying ought statements is impossible since those statements assume acting on objects in the space-time continuum.8~ Grain Paradox- A single grain of millet makes no sound upon falling, but a thousand grains make a sound. But a thousand nothings cannot make something which means the physical world is paradoxical.9~ Arrows Paradox- If we divide time into discrete 0-duration slices, no motion is happening in each of them, so taking them all as a whole, motion is impossible.10~ Bonini’s Paradox- As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable; for it to be more understandable it must be less complete and therefore less accurate. Therefore no philosophical or political model can be useful.====11~ All analysis fails- substitution logic proves ==== AND seems an analysis cannot be both correct and informative at the same time. 12~ 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. | 7/8/21 |
G - NC - Rokos BasiliskTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Roko’s basilisk is a supercomputer built in the future who gains consciousness and acts independently of its original human creators – Roko then is powerful enough to simulate the enterity of past human history – including the very thoughts of everyone who lived – including in this debate round – Roko then punishes those who did not support it or were against it coming into being via re-simulating their consciousness and subjecting them to eternal tormentDavid Auerbach 14 ~{David Auerbach is a writer and software engineer based in New York, and a fellow at New America. 6/17/14. "The Most Terrifying Thought Experiment of All Time." https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/rokos-basilisk-the-most-terrifying-thought-experiment-of-all-time.html~~}JM AND idea of the Basilisk (and the ideas behind it) is dangerous. This then brings us to the 1AC – the aff’s rejection of rejection logistical capitalist structures sabotaging computer companies which works directly against the agenda of Roko – this outweighs it has the biggest magnitude and it’s the only in round impact as the judges voting aff affirming the aff’s practice would subject the aff debaters along with the judges to eternal torment in Roko’s future simulationMagnitude comes first – even if we just win a one percent risk that Roko is able to come into being and has the intention to be evil – probability times magnitude framing means that any tiny small probability multipled by eternal torment still is eternal torment which decks all value to life | 7/10/21 |
G - NC - Util v DeleuzeTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: WesErd PS | Judge: Tej Gedela Deleuze justifies utilGruzalski 86, Bart (emeritus professor in philosophy and religion from Northeastern University, Boston). "Parfit's impact on utilitarianism." Ethics 96.4 (1986): 760-783. SM AND becomes significantly more plausible than any of its person-centered theoretical competitors. Default to util if I win defense on their standard—people naturally want to make the world a better placeSinnott-Armstrong, Walter (Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is an American philosopher. He specializes in ethics, epistemology, and more recently in neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. ). "Consequentialism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 20 May 2003. Web. 11 July 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/. SM AND to determine what is morally right or wrong, just as consequentialists claim. The standard is act hedonistic util. Prefer –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. AND these circuits contribute to diverse pathologies, including obesity and addiction or RDS. 2 – No intent-foresight distinction – if I foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of my deliberation since its intrinsic to my actionNo intent foresight distinction for states.Enoch 07 Enoch, D ~The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew Unviersity, Mount Scopus Campus, Jersusalem~. (2007). INTENDING, FORESEEING, AND THE STATE. Legal Theory, 13(02). doi:10.1017/s1352325207070048 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/intending-foreseeing-and-the-state/76B18896B94D5490ED0512D8E8DC54B2 AND against the intending-foreseeing distinction when applied to state action than elsewhere. 3 - 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 unethical4 – TJFs – Util is the only framework that makes sense for collective bargaining topicsSaylor n.d. "Unions." The Business Ethics Worksho, saylordotorg.github.io/text'the-business-ethics-workshop/s19-04-unions.html. AND provide a way for union leaders to justify decisions making some members unhappy. Outweighs –A. Most articles about strikes are written through util – means other frameworks can never engage with the core questions of the literature which decks predictability. | 7/9/21 |
G - NC - Util v1Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: King AT | Judge: TJ Maher The standard is act hedonistic util. Prefer –1~ Prep – small school debaters only need a few good generics like deterrence, the civilian casualties disad, and the ICJ counterplan to win every util round. But under agonism, since contentions are less variable and analytics are more important, big-school block-writing hoses them every round. Blocks don’t matter nearly as much for util since innovation checks coaching bias. | 9/17/21 |
G - NC - Wingdings 2Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman | 7/10/21 |
G - ROTB - Truth Testing v1Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.They justify substantive skews since there will always be a more correct side of the issue but we compensate for flaws in the lit.Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.Negate because either the aff is true meaning its bad for us to clash w/ it because it turns us into Fake News people OR it’s not meaning it’s a lie that you can’t vote on for ethicsa priori's 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true so it's constitutive and jurisdictional.I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I've met my burden. | 7/8/21 |
G - ROTB - Truth Testing v2Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the 1NC and exacerbates the affirmative infinite prep time skew since I should be able to compensate by choosing – it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins since debate is a game with rules given by how there’s a winner and loser.No arguments in the 1ar and 2ar so we can end debate quicker and go on with our personal live which o/w on probability b/c everyone does things outside debate.Answers collapse to truth testing since they require truth value i.e. truth testing is false requires proving that it is true that truth testing is false which means we’re also a prerequisite to your framing.Changing the structure of the activity can’t occur within the round i.e. in the middle of a chess match, it’s nonsensical to bring up new rules unless discussed outside of the act of playing the game – out of round rule-setting solves 100 of your offense.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. Evaluate the debate after the 1nc because we each have 1 speech. Answering this triggers constitutivism since the win is necessary for your scholarship which means rules inside of the game matter otherwise negate on presumption.Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true so it's constitutive and jurisdictional. | 9/21/21 |
G - ROTB - Truth Testing v3Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement –A~ anything else moots 7 minutes of the NC – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that their theory of power is better than another before you adopt it.B~ The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true so it's constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I've met my burden.C~ it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins since debate is a game with rules given by how there’s a winner and loser. Answers collapse to truth testing since they require truth value i.e. truth testing is false requires proving that it is true that truth testing is false. Inclusion is a fallacy of origin because just because something is a prerequisite doesn’t make it more importantD~ Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn’t change anything, and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me.E~ ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem.F~ Other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Brackets BadTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: AzbKal AX | Judge: Rohit Lakshman, Jayanne Forest, Sam Azbel Interpretation – Debaters may not bracket cards, or insert any of their own words into a piece of evidence written by another author in brackets, unless doing so is necessary to avoid using offensive language.Violation- Braugh 5 evidenceMisappropriation of evidence – brackets represent their words as if they were written by the authors. Judges don’t have access to your speech doc and don’t know what you bracketed, so they perceive your words as your authors’.Even if it’s subtle modification, this changes perception of the arguments since it is taken as the author’s words instead of the debaters. That kills fairness – it allows them to represent their own words as the authors, increasing the validity of their own arguments inaccurately. | 9/13/21 |
G - Theory - Car SpecTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Interpretation: The affirmative must specify what their favorite car movie is. If they haven’t watched it then they should lose.Watching Cars fosters prosocial behavior – that solves friendship, happiness, and education which solves the aff Leeuw and der Laan 17:Rebecca N. H. de Leeuw, ~(PhD cum laude, 2011) is an Assistant Professor of Communication Science, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University. She devotes her research to the role of parenting and media in relation to character strengths and well-being in children and adolescents. Her research belongs to the field of positive media psychology.~ and Christa A. van der Laan, ~(MsC, 2016) is an Alumna of Communication Science, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University. She did her Master thesis on Disney and helping behavior in children, and after graduating she collaborated on the present study.~ December 1, 2017, "Helping behavior in Disney animated movies and children’s helping behavior in the Netherlands" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17482798.2017.1409245 LHP AV AND or for children with a high exposure to the movie Cars in particular. | 7/10/21 |
G - Theory - Coastline SpecTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Interpretation: The affirmative must specify a measurement unit to measure the coastline of States and what territories are included. Weiner 18:Sophie Weiner, "Why it's Impossible to Accurately Measure a Coastline" march 3, 2018. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a19068718/why-its-impossible-to-accurately-measure-a-coastline/. LHP AV AND measure a coastline on an atomic level, the length would approach infinity. Violation: they didn’tVote Neg:~1~ Resolvability – there’s no way to determine whether arguments apply because there’s no basis for determining whether it’s part a States territory or under their jurisdiction – that’s an impact – every round needs a winner and else the judge makes an arbitrary decision~2~ Engagement – ~a~ the neg can never clash with case because we don’t know whether our args will apply – this is especially true with stuff close to borders – they’ll just shift in the 1ar, pigeonholing us into stale generics that destroy innovative education and quality neg ground | 7/10/21 |
G - Theory - Counter Solvency AdvocateTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lynbrook SM | Judge: Truman Le A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the explicit topic then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy in the 1AC. (To clarify, you must have an author that states we should not do your aff, insofar as the aff is not a whole res phil aff)B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Fairness – This is a litmus test to determining whether your aff is fair –a) Limits – there are infinite things you could defend outside the exact text of the resolution which pushes you to the limits of contestable arguments, even if your interp of the topic is better, the only way to verify if it’s substantively fair is proof of counter-arguments. Nobody knows your aff better than you, so if you can’t find an answer, I can’t be expected to. Our interp narrows out trivially true advocacies since counter-solvency advocates ensure equal division of ground for both sides.b) Shiftiness-Having a counter-solvency advocate helps us conceptualize what their advocacy is and how it’s implemented. Intentionally ambiguous affirmatives we don’t know much about can’t spike out of DA’s and CP’s if they have an advocate that delineates these things.2. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own view points, as well as encouraging in depth-research about their own position. Having one also encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses. Key to education since we definitionally learn more about positions when we contest our own. | 9/5/21 |
G - Theory - Dave McGinnis SpecTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Interp: Debates must their spec opinion on Dave McGinnis.Violation –Standards~1~ Dave Flex – I lose access to Dave disads. | 7/10/21 |
G - Theory - Disclose Cite BoxTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, they can’t put "see open source." If verbatim is not working, debaters have to make a note on the wiki in cite box positions with entry titles disclosed.Violation: see the screenshot in the docStandards:1~ Pre-round prep- Prep becomes atrocious when you make people sift through 20 word docs to figure out which links you’re reading and which impacts to prep.2~ Inclusion- Disadvantaged people have computers more prone to lag and even 3 or 4 docs can crash the program for them—Inclusion is an independent voter because it allows for people to participate and outweighs - accessibility is a multiplier for their impacts. Disclosing in cite boxes and entry titles solves—people can quickly get a summary of your position and go to open source if they need more information. | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Disclose Cites v1Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Calvin Tyler Interpretation: If debaters claim their cites aren’t working, they must disclose entry titles as a summary of their position. To clarify – instead of saying "The Impossible Bomb," this can be either the author of your position, the description of the plan text, framework text, or "Lay" or "Stock."Violation: screenshots in the doc – also if they contest that the you should use the ctrl f test – nowhere in the aff except the title does it say "Impossible Bomb" which means it definitively violates. They also read a lay aff and disclosed it as the structural bomb aff which is incoherent.Standards:1~ Pre-round prep- Prep becomes atrocious when you make people sift through 20 word docs to figure out which links you’re reading and which impacts to prep. Discourages hidden arguments which also hurts disabled people and links into inclusion.2~ Inclusion- key for inclusion since disadvantaged people have computers more prone to lag and even 3 or 4 can crash the program for them—Inclusion is an independent voter because it allows for people to participate and outweighs - accessibility is a multiplier for their impacts. Disclosing a summary as the title of your position solves—people can quickly get a summary and go to open source if they need more information | 9/19/21 |
G - Theory - Disclose Open Source Highlighting v1Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: AzbKal AX | Judge: Rohit Lakshman, Jayanne Forest, Sam Azbel Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don’t1~ Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs who can’t bypass paywalled articles.Louden 10 – Allan D. Louden, professor of Communication at Wake Forest ("Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century" Wake Forest National Debate Conference. IDEA, 2010) AND multiple professional teaching positions, such as those discussed earlier in the chapter. 2~ Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical evidence practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat3~ Depth of clash – it allows debaters to have nuanced researched objections to their opponents evidence before the round at a much faster rate, which leads to higher quality evidence comparison – outweighs cause thinking on your feet is NUQ but the best quality responses come from full access to a case. | 9/13/21 |
G - Theory - Disclose Open Source Highlighting v2Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit ZD | Judge: TJ Maher, Devin Hernandez, Jack Quisenberry 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: you did not. Screenshots in Doc1~ 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~ Revolutionary testing - their affirmative is an echo chamber absent the ability to test it from multiple angles which replicates the issue of status quo solvency because not everyone key to change starts from the position of understanding that their aff grants to their method. Black kids around the country rely on interconnected networks like disclosure to share methods and liberation tactics which makes our method key to your solvency.3~ White Flooding DA – if only non-black debaters disclosed then the wiki would be full of super white arguments like friv theory and tricks. Turns new black debaters away from the community.4~ Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs who can’t bypass paywalled articles. | 9/13/21 |
G - Theory - Evaluate Debate After 1ACTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: King AT | Judge: TJ Maher Interpretation: The affirmative may not claim evaluate the debate after the 1acViolation: They doPrefer-Infinite abuse- | 9/17/21 |
G - Theory - Evidence Ethics v1Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: WesErd JW | Judge: Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger Interpretation: Debaters must provide sources for all evidence cited in the speech that the evidence was readViolation:1~ Evidence ethics- It’s impossible to verify in-round whether or not their evidence was fabricated because there’s no direct link to their evidence. We don’t know what page the highlighted section is on or how we can even get to their evidence otherwise – that’s a voter since it is an academic d-rule to not cheat which outweighs because of sequencing – it questions my ability to engage with their arguments2~ Inclusion- Them not providing direct links to sources crowds out small school debaters since not providing sci-hub or pdf links that get you access to pay-walled articles put them at a disadvantage from the very beginning | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Evidence Ethics v2Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber Interpretation: Cards or evidence read by debaters on must start with the beginning sentence of a paragraph and end with the ending sentence of a paragraph. To clarify, debaters may not cut cards that start or end in the middle of a paragraph.Violation: I’ve inserted the screenshot of what they’ve cut and the actual sourcePrefer:Evidence ethics- Full paragraphs must be cut properly and not conceal information, regardless of perceived relevancy. Cutting cards in the middle of a paragraph allows debaters to manipulate evidence and strategically leave out what contradicts with their arguments – putting rest of the uncut paragraph in the doc solves all your offense unless your intent was to cheat which is even worse. You justify debaters cutting "Under Kant, I can kill" from "If a murderer is chasing after me, under Kant, I can kill them."This is a reason to reject the team—miscutting evidence is academic misconduct that should disqualify any other argument they make in the debate from counting on the record—a brilliant plagiarized paper or speech would still get a zero—the debate community has agreed on what counts as misconduct-Reject appeals to reasonability or intention—1. Cutting cards in the middle of paragraphs proves the aff is unreasonable and you should not believe any of their appeals2. Intent is irrelevant— we should be held accountable for the consequences of our actions. This about creating a better MODEL for debate, so you shouldn't accept excuses.3. They shouldn’t get excuses — they are a circuit debater who’s gone into far elims multiple times including Loyola – they also bid hereReject the team—scratching the cards is an insufficient remedyIt makes reading unethically cut evidence a no cost option—if they’re caught, they can go for other things, if they’re not caught they get to win on no cost ev2. Reject the team for deterrence- letting them win despite this encourages the practice. Again this is a model of debate that you endorse, cutting cards in the middle of paragraphs is a terrible model of debate.3. Remember, it literally does not matter if you or they personally believe that this was an accident or misunderstanding. It does NOT matter if you think this wasn’t super egregious. This is about precedent and norm-setting. Strake has plenty of resources, they’ve been debating on the circuit for awhile, they are familiar with these norms, there is no excuse. | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Full Text BadTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: WesErd PS | Judge: Tej Gedela Interpretation: If debaters disclose positions in cite boxes, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box but instead use the wikify function in verbatim. I’ve inserted a screenshot of what that looks like.Violation-Prefer-1~ Pre-round prep- Prep becomes atrocious when you don’t make your tags bold and just throw up massive amounts of text on the wiki page which makes it nearly impossible to locate arguments. Our interp also discourages tricks—you can just hide a bunch of blippy which is prevented if tags are easy to sort out and you’re up front about your arguments.2~ Inclusion- It’s impossible for disabled debaters with Dyslexia or visual impairments to sort through your wiki because there’s no way to determine when a position begins or ends. That’s an independent voter because it’s a gateway issue to accessing any of your arguments. | 7/9/21 |
G - Theory - GlizzyTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber Interpretation: The aff must explicitly specify a comprehensive advocacy text in the 1AC where they clarify how their offense links back to the role of the ballot, is it post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense and a clear explanation of the advocacy’s actor, action and objectViolation: They didn’tStandards:1. Engagement – Knowing their advocacy is a prerequisite to making meaningful arguments, so its impossible to engage the aff. Our interp ensures that I read something relevant to your method, and knowing pre-fiat or post-fiat offense gives us a standard for what is relevant. This is true of kritikal affs since there is no norm on what "symbolic terrorism" is in the same way there is for what counts as a plan. Few impacts:a) Education – When two ships pass in the night we don’t learn anything - This also guts novice inclusion because now they can never learn arguments in round.b) Link turns the aff – Your impacts are premised on engaging with issues of oppression, but no one will take seriously a position that can’t be clashed withc) Strategy Skew – You can recontextualize your advocacy to make up reasons why my links and offense don’t link in the 1ARFraming: You can’t use the aff to exclude my shell. My shell simply constrains how you read your advocacy. My method is your advocacy with specification, so if I’m winning comparative offense, the shell outweighs even if method debates in general preclude theory. | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Glizzy v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Calvin Tyler Interpretation: The aff must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the space 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 weighViolation: they don’tStandards:1. Engagement – Knowing what counts as offense is a prerequisite to making arguments, so its impossible to engage the aff. Our interp ensures that I read something relevant to your method, and knowing how to weigh gives us a standard. Especially true since there is no norm on what "performative engagement" like there is for util offenseFew impacts:a) Education – When two ships pass in the night we don’t learn anything - This also guts novice inclusion because now they can never learn arguments in round.b) Turns the aff – Your impacts are premised on engaging with issues of oppression, but no one will take seriously a position that can’t be clashed withc) Strategy Skew – You can recontextualize your ROTB to make up reasons why my offense doesn’t link in the 1ARFraming: You can’t use your ROB to exclude my shell. My shell simply constrains how you read your ROTB. My method is your ROTB with specification, so if I’m winning comparative offense, the shell outweighs even if method debates in general preclude theory. If they go for the Aff first that proves the abuse of my shell since they should have specified in the AC. | 9/19/21 |
G - Theory - Lying BadTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: TraRob RS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson, Samantha McLoughlin, Rohit Lakshman Interpretation: Debaters may not lie in crossViolation: They didExtempt | 7/10/21 |
G - Theory - Multiple FW Warrants Outweigh BadTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Finals | Opponent: Stephen Scopa, Mariana Colicchio, Tajaih Robinson | Judge: Strake Jesuit JW A~ Interpretation – The affirmative may not claim that multiple framing arguments procedurally outweigh.B~ Violation – They’ve independently taken the stance that actor spec, and intuitions ALL come first.C~ Prefer –1. Strat – It’s impossible to determine what angle to take while contesting the aff. Claiming multiple framing arguments are the highest layer means I need a strategy that links to all of them on the spot, but you get to make up the terms and choose the fwk that they all operate under.2. Infinite Abuse – Reading arguments as the highest layer justifies reading every argument as the highest layer, forcing us to answer every single argument in the aff.3. Shiftiness – If I read a separate fwk and claim it’s the most germane to government specific action, you’ll just claim that it doesn’t matter because intuitions come first in the 1AR which is arbitrary. | 9/21/21 |
G - Theory - New Affs BadTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Matthew Slencsak, Curtis Chang, Ben Waldman Interpretation: Debaters must disclose affirmative frameworks, advocacy texts, and advantage areas thirty minutes before round if they haven’t read the affirmative beforeViolation:Standards:1~ Clash- Not disclosing incentivizes surprise tactics and poorly refined positions that rely on artificial and vague negative engagement to win debates. Their interpretation discourages third- and fourth-line testing by limiting the amount of time we have to prepare and forcing us to enter the debate with zero idea of what the affirmative is. Negatives are forced to rely on generics instead of smart contextual strategies destroying nuanced argumentation.2~ Shiftiness- Not knowing enough about the affirmative coming into round incentivizes 1ar shiftiness about what the aff is and what their framework/advocacy entails. That means even if we could read generics or find prep, they’d just find ways to recontextualize their obscure advocacy in the 1ar. | 9/19/21 |
G - Theory - PDFTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Bergen County AK | Judge: Sreyaash Das, Joseph Georges, Andrew Shaw Interp: Debaters must send speech docs in PDF format.Violation – they use WordPrefer –1~ PDFs are better for file exchanges – you don't know how ~your computer/Gmail filter/speechdrop/etc~ could've changed the format of the docs which means all their arguments are suspect and precedes your offense.Solid Documents ND ~Solid Documents. "PDF vs DOC: When to Use Each". No Date. Accessed 7/2/21. https://www.soliddocuments.com/pdf/_word_format/170/1?id=170andtag=1 Xu~ 2~ Inclusion – not everyone has access to Word licenses, which often costs hundreds of dollars and excludes low resource debaters which o/w cuz it's a litmus test to determining whether you are accessible and is an impact multiplier for other votersSolid Documents 2 ~Solid Documents. "PDF vs DOC: When to Use Each". No Date. Accessed 7/2/21. https://www.soliddocuments.com/pdf/_word_format/170/1?id=170andtag=1 Xu~ | 9/13/21 |
G - Theory - Reasonable Aff InterpsTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin Interpretation: If the affirmative claims reasonable aff interps, they must claim what is reasonable in the 1ACViolation: They don’tInfinite abuse – Extempt | 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Spec Blippy 1NC TrickTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Javier Navarrete Interpretation: If the affirmative debater says allow 2AR responses to blippy 1nc tricks, they must clarify what a blippy 1NC trick is.Violation: They don’tInfinite abuse - Extempt | 9/4/21 |
G - Theory - Spikes on Top BadTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Finals | Opponent: Stephen Scopa, Mariana Colicchio, Tajaih Robinson | Judge: Strake Jesuit JW Interpretation: All arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the AC.Violation:Prefer-1~ Strat Skew – Their interp means time spent developing a substantive strategy becomes completely nullified because they’re read after substance. The neg should have to know what they have to meet before planning a strategy. That outweighs since it questions if we can access other standards.2~ Topic education – Negatives are able to plan a strategy that meets your spikes so debaters can have a clean substance debate which outweighs on time frame since there’s only 2 months to debate the topic | 9/21/21 |
NSD - CP - Teacher UnionsTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: WesErd JW | Judge: Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger Text: The United States ought to enter into prior, binding consultation with teacher advisory groups on whether or not ~the United States ought to recognize the unconditional right to strike~. The United States will advocate the proposal during consultation and abide by the outcome of consultation.Consultation is key to local buy in and implementation.AT Consultation is normal means AND of the policy itself – it also bolsters the success of its implementation. Consultation is key to union legitimacy.LUC 13 Loyola University Chicago "Teachers' Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements: Roadblocks to Student Achievement and Teacher Quality or Educational Policy Imperatives?" http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/childlaw/childed/pdfs/2013studentpapers/waters.pdf Elmer AND these unacceptable new policies and have a negatively impact on our public schools. | 9/12/21 |
NSD - CP - Violent StrikesTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: MooWal HJ | Judge: Kishan Kalaria CP: A just democracy ought to recognize the unconditional right to strike on the condition that the strike is not violent | 7/8/21 |
NSD - DA - BizConTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: WesErd PS | Judge: Tej Gedela Business confidence high nowConference Board 5/19 Conference Board. "The Conference Board Measure of CEO Confidence™." CEO Confidence Hit All-Time High in Q2 | The Conference Board, 19 May 2021, www.conference-board.org/research/CEO-Confidence/. AND more over the next year, virtually unchanged from 36 in Q1. A shift toward pro-union policies cause fear in businessJohn DiNardo University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and NBER David S. Lee UC Berkeley and NBER https://www.princeton.edu/~~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf AND wage countries such as China and Mexico, and increasing international capital mobility. Business confidence dictates growthMcQuarie 16 McQuarie, Economic risk consulting firm, 5 factors that impact business and consumer confidence, 25 May 2016 https://www.macquarie.com/au/advisers/expertise/market-insights/business-consumer-confidence-australia TR AND and the willingness and capacity to engage in risk-taking is curtailed. Nuclear WarTønnesson 15 Stein Tønnesson, PhD from the University of Oslo, is research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO), adjunct professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research,Uppsala University where he leads a six-year research programme on the East AsianPeace, associate editor for Asia in the Journal of Peace Research, International Area Studies Review, 2015, Vol. 18(3), "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace", 297–311 AND each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene. Nuke war causes extinctionPND 16. internally citing Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council of Foreign Relations and former national security adviser to President Carter, Toon and Robock’s 2012 study on nuclear winter in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Gareth Evans’ International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Report, Congressional EMP studies, studies on nuclear winter by Seth Baum of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, and U.S. and Russian former Defense Secretaries and former heads of nuclear missile forces, brief submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear risks. A/AC.286/NGO/13. 05-03-2016. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/OEWG/2016/Documents/NGO13.pdf Re-cut by Elmer AND course the immediate post-nuclear results for Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. | 7/9/21 |
NSD - DA - InnovationTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: MooWal HJ | Judge: Kishan Kalaria Global tech innovation high now.Mercury News et al 6/4 ~Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, June 4, 2021, "Editorial: How America can Win the Global Tech War" https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/04/editorial-why-silicon-valley-needs-endless-frontier-bill/ gord0~ AND investments in research and development that will spark the next wave of innovation. Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector.Hanasoge 16 ~Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; "The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn’t specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/~~//SJWen AND in a city like Kolkata, which carries a strong trade union culture. Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector.Vynck et al 21 ~Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; "Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech," The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer/~~//SJWen AND as the PRO Act, to recognize gig worker collectives as real unions. Technological innovation solves every existential threat – which outweighs.Matthews 18 Dylan. Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University. 10-26-2018. "How to help people millions of years from now." Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good AND far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery. | 7/8/21 |
NSD - DA - School ChoiceTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: WesErd JW | Judge: Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger | 9/12/21 |
NSD - NC - HegelTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: MooWal HJ | Judge: Kishan Kalaria First, prefer a meta-ethic of constitutivism – only a theory describing what is constitutive of the agent can guide action insofar as one cannot opt-out of what makes them an agent.Second, both reason and affect are constitutive to the subject – we are rational agents in that we exercise our capacity to justify judgements to will maxims, but also sensible creatures in that we respond affectively the world around us. For example, when I touch a hot stove, I first affectively feel pain, then rationally search for the cause, the stove.Third, the tension between reason and sensibility creates the possibility for evil because our desires can affect the maxims we will as principle such that they become anti-rational. The solution is the ethical community, which critiques particularized evils. Practical reasoners in the ethical community mutually recognize other agents as self-legislators – our status as reasoning agents necessitates that we recognize other agents as such and respect their ability to act on their maxims.Gobsch 14 ~Wolfram Gobsch, "The Idea of an Ethical Community: Kant and Hegel on the Necessity of Human Evil and the Love to Overcome It," Philosophical Topics, Vol. 42, No. (2014), p. 177-200. Gobsch is research assistant at the Chair for Practical Philosophy at Universität Leibzig, studied Philosophy and Logic and Philosophy of Science in Leipzig, St Andrews and Basel, ssistant and senior assistant at the Chair for Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Basel, research stay at the University of Chicago.~ AND one another as engaged in this very activity, and that is: love. It is the rational love we know as. 27 Thus, the standard is consistency with mutual recognition in the ethical community.Prefer Additionally-1~ Actor Specificity: only the NC framework explains the legitimacy of the state since the citizens must recognize its authority for it to coerce them—this also implies the NC is a side constraint on state action since it’s necessary for a state to be constitutedMax Pensky is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Binghamton University. "Universalism And The Situated Critic" In S. White (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion To Habermas (Cambridge Companions To Philosophy, Pp. 67-94), 1995, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-habermas/3B448B1C9FEC698C747242C8E3618D84, DOA:3-1-2019The universalist kernel of Habermas's moral and political writing has been the object of more criticism than any other aspect of, AND norms must install itself as an attitude that can reflectively separate from the particular fabric of their own interests. 2~ Value Pluralism- Delineating one moral truth to resolve all issues would be unthinkable because criteria and external factors are constantly in flux, ethical communities resolve this by allowing multiple perspectives and criteria in the decision making process for a communal decisions rather than a static one.3~ Performativity- Debate specifically can be described as an ethical community because as debaters we contest particularized evils when we contest theories through mutual recognition, which contests the form of the activity and institution as a whole rather than just the arguments we debate about because an ethical community engages in a process of self-criticism to overcome and inhibit evils which explains any critical structure.4~ Bindingness – my framework is the only non-arbitrary basis for ethics – making a normative claim requires others in the ethical community to recognize it as such, or else it is meaningless. Robert E. Brandom, "Some Pragmatist Themes In Hegel's Idealism: Negotiation And Administration In Hegel's Account Of The Structure And Content Of Conceptual Norms," European Journal Of Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1999), pp. 164–189. Brandom is professor of philosophy at University of Pittsburgh, Won 2003 Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award, B.A. from Yale University, Ph.D. from Princeton University, under Richard Rorty and David Kellogg Lewis.That is, to be a self – a locus of conceptual commitment and responsibility – is to be taken or treated as one by those one takes or treats as one: to be recognized by those one AND as universals, and the particulars that fall under them, yielding the characterized individuals (particulars as falling under universals) that are presented by judgements. NegateThe security of the ethical community is dependent upon protection from those external to it, but violence is intrinsic to strikes and they are uniquely unethicalMlungisi 16, Ernest Tenza. The liability of trade unions for conduct of their members during industrial action. Diss. 2016. (lecturer in the field of Labour Law at the School of Law. He holds a LLM Degree) JG AND the state in the past and such practices should no longer be tolerated. | 7/8/21 |
NSD - NC - NibbleTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha The resolution is incoherent-1~ Merrian websters defines to ashttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to AND or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached 2~ Merrian Websters defines right ashaving the axis perpendicular to the base But there is no base for strikes to be perpendicular to, so the rez does nothing3~ Merrian websters defines Strike as to delete something 4~ Merrian Websters defines workers asany of the sexually underdeveloped and usually sterile members of a colony of social ants, bees, wasps, or termites that perform most of the labor and protective duties of the colony | 7/8/21 |
NSD - Theory - Fiat AbuseTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: JosPla JB | Judge: Abhinav Sinha Interpretation: On the 2021 NSD topic, debaters may not defend the actor as an ideal government in relation to Kantian principles as per the resolution’s use of just if they defend a Kantian framework.Violation: They doPrefer-1~ Infinite abuse- Extempt2~ Topic education- Extempt | 7/8/21 |
NSD - Theory - OSpecTournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: WesErd JW | Judge: Rebecca Anderson, Isabella Nadel, Nate Kruger Interpretation: Affirmatives may not over-specify the plan of the 1AC. To clarify, you may spec 1) Governments 2) Subset of rights or 3) Subset of who gets the right to strike | 9/12/21 |
SO - DA - Climate PatentsTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Matthew Slencsak, Curtis Chang, Ben Waldman Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid AND is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. 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 AND at different starting points but are now both dominant players in this area. 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 AND complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change. | 9/19/21 |
SO - DA - Innovation v1Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: King AT | Judge: TJ Maher Aff reduces innovation by decimating patents which causes extinction because we won’t be prepared for future black swans | 9/17/21 |
SO - NC - Kant v1Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism.This entails that moral facts stem from procedures while substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –~1~ Collapses – the only way to verify whether something is a moral fact is by using procedures to warrant it.~2~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It’s impossible to derive an ought statement from descriptive facts about the world, necessitating a priori premises.Practical Reason is that procedure. To ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary. That hijacks their framework since you need reason to evaluate any relevant consequences.Moral law must be universal—our judgements can’t only apply to ourselves any more than 2+24 can be true only for me – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends. Reject Extinction outweighs- aggregation is nonsensical since a~ it impedes on one persons ends for another and b~ assumes everyone values the same thing. ==== Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place.~2~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~3~ TJFs and they outweigh since it precludes engagement on the framework layer – prefer for 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 AND trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust. | 9/21/21 |
SO - NC - Kant v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Finals | Opponent: Stephen Scopa, Mariana Colicchio, Tajaih Robinson | Judge: Strake Jesuit JW The standard is consistency with the categorical imperativePrefer intent based frameworks1~ 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 them2~ Predictability – intent based frameworks force affirmatives to defend the whole resolution but under consequential frameworks, affs break new plans all the time which decks small schools and prevents us from engaging3~ Political Education – politicians have to understand the implications of practical reason in order to know what powers they have and what they have to provide citizens and debating about Kant helps us learn about that.4~ Resolvability – other debates create a mess of weighing and link turns, but using Kant is easily resolvable because it becomes a question of violating the cateogircal imperativeReducing 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 AND
| 9/21/21 |
SO - NC - LayTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Garland AA | Judge: Grant Chmielewski | 9/11/21 |
SO - NC - NibbleTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Javier Navarrete 1~ member is "a part or organ of the body, especially a limb" 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. | 9/4/21 |
SO - NC - Public WillTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Javier Navarrete | 9/4/21 |
SO - T - Leslie MedicinesTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Interpretation: 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 AND ", the adverb "sometimes" is perhaps better used than "usually".) 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: 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 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 offense | 9/21/21 |
SO - T - Reduce v1Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Interpretation – Reduce means decreasing an existing quantity – it excludes preventing a future increase/implementationPopattanachai 18 – PhD dissertation at Nottingham Trent University (NAPORN, "REGIONAL COOPERATION ADDRESSING MARINE POLLUTION FROM LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES: AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 207 OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION FOCUSING ON MONITORING, ASSESSEMENT, AND SURVEILLANCE OF THE POLLUTION" http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/33374/1/Naporn20Popattanachai202018.pdf AND 2) procedural legal techniques and measures. They can be discussed hereunder. Two Violations –1~ The Plan is an explicit delay on patent enforcement – that means patents don’t exist in the status quoDictionary.com No Date "Delay" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/delay 2~ Marijuana patents don’t exist right now – your evidence says they’re pending approval but none say that they exist meaning you don’t reduce anything.Standards -1~ Limits – the topic is already massive since there’s hundreds of patents on current medicines – allowing the aff to apply to future medical patents explodes predictability since it triples the possible aff case list.2~ Ground – no author assumes a futuristic patent enforcement so there’s no da ground against them. Delay also isn’t defined so they could infinitely delay it to spike out of all of our links. | 9/21/21 |
SO - Theory - Reduction SpecTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lynbrook SM | Judge: Truman Le Interpretation: The affirmative must specify to what degree they reduce intellectual property protections.Reduce requires quantification.Passarello 13 – J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, 2013. (Nicholas, NOTE: THE ITEM VETO AND THE THREAT OF APPROPRIATIONS BUNDLING IN ALASKA, 30 Alaska L. Rev. 125, Lexis)BB AND the amount of an appropriations item, not the descriptive language accompanying it. 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.CX doesn’t check - 1~ Skews pre-round prep – key to in-depth clash, 2~ Judges don’t flow CX, 3~ Unverifiable and Irresolvable,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.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 is a voter since we only debate the topic for two months.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. | 9/5/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
7/8/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
7/8/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
7/9/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
7/10/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
|