| 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 |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | Plano East HN | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | Harrison JP | Eric He |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Doubles | Strake Jesuit JS | Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Doubles | Strake Jesuit JS | Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan |
|
|
| |
| Any | Finals | Any | Any |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Eagan VK | Melanie Cohn |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Scarsdale BS | Momo Khattak |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Monta Vista KR | Michael Harris |
|
|
| |
| Colleyville | 1 | Greenhill KD | Blake Andrews |
|
|
| |
| Colleyville | 4 | Houston Memorial DX | Austin Broussard |
|
|
| |
| Colleyville | Octas | Little Rock Central MG | Kristen Arnold |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 2 | Garland AA | Grant Chmielewski |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Clements AK | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Semis | Strake Jesuit ZD | TJ Maher, Devin Hernandez, Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Doubles | Bergen County AK | Sreyaash Das, Joseph Georges, Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Quarters | Plano East JN | JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Octas | Westwood AR | TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin |
|
|
| |
| Harvard Round Robin | 3 | Eagan AE | Andrew Gong, Matthew Berhe |
|
|
| |
| Harvard Round Robin | 4 | Lexington AG | Angela Zhong, Oliver Sussman |
|
|
| |
| Harvard Round Robin | Semis | Strake Jesuit JS | Andrew Qin, Matthew Berhe, Alan George |
|
|
| |
| Harvard Round Robin | Finals | Prospect ST | Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| King Round Robin | 1 | Southlake Carrol PK | Tyler Gamble, Victor Chen |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 1 | Byram Hills AK | Javier Navarrete |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 6 | Lynbrook SM | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 3 | Sequoia AS | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 1 | Franklin AS | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 4 | Strake Jesuit JW | Pheonix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 6 | Clements KK | Ishaan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | Quarters | Garland LY | Joseph Georges, Avery Wilson, Alexis Antonakakis |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 2 | Tuloso Midway AJ | Josh Porter |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 4 | Little Rock Central XJ | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 6 | Plano East AD | Alexander Yoakum |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Doubles | Immaculate Heart JL | William Coltzer, Ibbi Sheikh, Nevin Gera |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Octas | Plano East AW | Jack Quisenberry, Javier Navarrete, William Coltzer |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Semis | Strake Jesuit JS | Jugal Amodwala, Tej Gedela, Sophie Wilczynski |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Quarters | Strake Jesuit ZD | Austin Broussard, Jugal Amodwala, Aaron Barcio |
|
|
| |
| 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 |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | King AT | TJ Maher |
|
|
|
| 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 |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Plano East HN | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Korea |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Eric He 1AC - Mimicry |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan 1AC - Debris |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan 1AC - Debris |
| Any | Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Information |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Eagan VK | Judge: Melanie Cohn 1AC - Lay |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Momo Khattak 1AC - Existentialism |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Michael Harris 1AC - Agriculture Workers |
| Colleyville | 1 | Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Blake Andrews 1AC - Colonization |
| Colleyville | 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard 1AC - America |
| Colleyville | Octas | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Kristen Arnold 1AC - Asian Alienation |
| Grapevine Classic | 2 | Opponent: Garland AA | Judge: Grant Chmielewski 1AC - Lay |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Opponent: Clements AK | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Evergreening |
| 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 |
| Grapevine Classic | Quarters | Opponent: Plano East JN | Judge: JP Stuckert, Sreyaash Das, Becca Traber 1AC - Race War |
| Grapevine Classic | Octas | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: TJ Maher, JP Stuckert, Samantha McLoughlin 1AC - Stock |
| Harvard Round Robin | 3 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Andrew Gong, Matthew Berhe 1AC - Stock |
| Harvard Round Robin | 4 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Angela Zhong, Oliver Sussman 1AC - Moon Treaty |
| Harvard Round Robin | Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Andrew Qin, Matthew Berhe, Alan George 1AC - Debris |
| Harvard Round Robin | Finals | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin 1AC - Kant |
| King Round Robin | 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol PK | Judge: Tyler Gamble, Victor Chen 1AC - Megaconstellations |
| 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 |
| TFA State | 1 | Opponent: Franklin AS | Judge: Devin Hernandez 1AC - Lay |
| TFA State | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pheonix Pittman 1AC - Poland |
| TFA State | 6 | Opponent: Clements KK | Judge: Ishaan Rereddy 1AC - Stock |
| TFA State | Quarters | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Joseph Georges, Avery Wilson, Alexis Antonakakis 1AC - Black |
| The Longhorn Classic | 2 | Opponent: Tuloso Midway AJ | Judge: Josh Porter 1AC - Kant |
| The Longhorn Classic | 4 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Joey Georges 1AC - Antiblackness |
| The Longhorn Classic | 6 | Opponent: Plano East AD | Judge: Alexander Yoakum 1AC - Bataille |
| The Longhorn Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Immaculate Heart JL | Judge: William Coltzer, Ibbi Sheikh, Nevin Gera 1AC - Brazil |
| The Longhorn Classic | Octas | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Javier Navarrete, William Coltzer 1AC - China |
| The Longhorn Classic | Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Jugal Amodwala, Tej Gedela, Sophie Wilczynski 1AC - Courts |
| The Longhorn Classic | Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit ZD | Judge: Austin Broussard, Jugal Amodwala, Aaron Barcio 1AC - Black |
| 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 |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: King AT | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - Tricks |
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 - Fellow YellowTournament: Colleyville | Round: Octas | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Kristen Arnold I advocate for the aff absent being read against a fellow Asian.Causes psychological violence since you force us to negate our identity and suffering O/ws A~ perf-con and pre-meditated murder – you know what you were doing awas bad but did it anyways B~ Link turn – aff can’t solve when it recreates violence.Asian coalitions are key to their method.Colitations good AND as we forge new paths toward allyship and a co-liberated future. | 2/5/22 |
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 | 9/21/21 |
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 - CP - XinjiangTournament: Colleyville | Round: Octas | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Kristen Arnold CP text: We advocate for the affirmative absent the word "Xinjiang" | 2/5/22 |
G - CP - YellowTournament: Colleyville | Round: Octas | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Kristen Arnold That necessarily excludes south Asians-Akshaya Kumar Presented September 27, 2005 Respondent: Patricia Chu, Associate Professor of English Moderator: Mark Mullen, Director of First Year Writing, UWP Neither Black Nor White Nor Yellow: The Racially Ambiguous South Asian cwaz AND that furthers their marginalization, the South Asian community is at a crossroads. Create a new name to rupture the color wheel and participate in mainstream discourseAkshaya Kumar Presented September 27, 2005 Respondent: Patricia Chu, Associate Professor of English Moderator: Mark Mullen, Director of First Year Writing, UWP Neither Black Nor White Nor Yellow: The Racially Ambiguous South Asian cwaz AND yellow are colors of the rainbow and not types of people. 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. | 2/5/22 |
G - K - Black BuddhismTournament: King Round Robin | Round: 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol PK | Judge: Tyler Gamble, Victor Chen The demand for durable fiat is a form of white delusion that represents an active misapprehension of realityMcRae ’19 ~Emily; May 13; Associate Professor of Buddhism at the University of New Mexico; Buddhism and Whiteness: Critical Reflections, Philosophy of Race, "Chapter 1," p. 44-45~ AND of equanimity (or "tarrying," as George Yancy has argued).3 International relations is complicit in an anti-black rationalism that pathologizes the lived realities of black folx as an insufficient critical prospectiveGordon and Harper-Shipman ’20 ~Lewis and T.D.; 2020; Professor of Philosophy at UCONN-Storr; Assistant Professor of Africana Studies at Davidson College; The Routledge Handbook to Rethinking Ethics in International Relations, "Race and Ethics in International Relations," p. 75-77~ AND global challenges on the organization of human and other planetary forms of life. Unethical delusions are an existential threat.Loy ’18 ~David; April 21st; Former professor of Ethics, Religion, and Society at Xavier University; Mountain Cloud, "Are Humans Special? Part 3 by David Loy," https://www.mountaincloud.org/are-humans-special-part-3-by-david-loy-2/~~ AND we as a species will fulfill the unique potential of precious human life. The alternative is Black Buddhist meditation.Vesely-Flad ’19 ~Rima; May 13; Ph.D. Director of Peace and Justice Studies at Warren Wilson College; Buddhism and Whiteness: Critical Reflections, Philosophy of Race, "Chapter 5," p. 85-86~ AND absolute existence; and (4) Liberating the self and the community. Interp: affirmatives must defend their epistemic project prior to weighing the plan.Debates about the "fiated consequences of the plan" promote ethical failure.Locke ’19 ~Jessica; May 13; Associate Professor of Buddhism at Loyola University of Maryland; Buddhism and Whiteness: Critical Reflections, Philosophy of Race, "Chapter 9," p. 161-175~ AND , we can exploit the always-unfinished trajectory of our ethical subjectivity. | 3/26/22 |
G - K - UtilTournament: King Round Robin | Round: 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol PK | Judge: Tyler Gamble, Victor Chen The appeal to util makes debate unsafe and is an independent reason to drop them. Accessibility is an impact filter and a prior question to debating.Anderson Anderson, Kerby. ~National Director of Probe Ministries International~ "Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number." Probe, 2004. RP AND the mechanism used to judge the action itself. Inviolability is intrinsically valuable. | 3/26/22 |
G - NC - Agonism vs Non-TTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit ZD | Judge: Austin Broussard, Jugal Amodwala, Aaron Barcio | 12/6/21 |
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.2~ Innovation – there are simply more articles written in the context of util than in agonism – simple Google search proves. Proves util incentivizes a wider variety of arguments than agonism, which causes recycling of old args – proven by the fact that the same agonism justifications have been read every phil round for decades. Think about it – new advantages are broken often, but phil contentions are established at the beginning of the topic and never change for two months.3~ Ground – non-util philosophies conclude overwhelmingly on one side of most topics – for example, Kant won every neg round on the national service topic. Only util generates robust debates with equitable ground.4~ Real-world – abstract debates about philosophy have much less grounding in the real world than util – discussing consequences gives students education about fopo, economics, IR, etc. Outweighs since portable skills are the ultimate goal of debate. | 9/21/21 |
G - NC - Util v2Tournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: Finals | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin The standard is maximizing expected well-being.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.2~ Innovation – there are simply more articles written in the context of util than in agonism – simple Google search proves. Proves util incentivizes a wider variety of arguments than agonism, which causes recycling of old args – proven by the fact that the same agonism justifications have been read every phil round for decades. Think about it – new advantages are broken often, but phil contentions are established at the beginning of the topic and never change for two months.3~ Ground – non-util philosophies conclude overwhelmingly on one side of most topics – for example, Kant won every neg round on the national service topic. Only util generates robust debates with equitable ground.4~ Real-world – abstract debates about philosophy have much less grounding in the real world than util – discussing consequences gives students education about fopo, economics, IR, etc. Outweighs since portable skills are the ultimate goal of debate. | 2/18/22 |
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 | 9/21/21 |
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 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 Cites v2Tournament: 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. | 2/18/22 |
G - Theory - Disclose Cites v3Tournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Andrew Gong, Matthew Berhe Interpretation – Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki. If cites don’t work, they should disclose entry titles as a summary of their position. To clarify – instead of having no entry title, this can be either the author of your position, the description of the plan text, or framework text.Violation – Check Screenshots1~ Wiki rules and accessibility – inclusion is a voter because you can’t debate if you can’t participateWiki Admin ~Administrator, "NDCA LD 2021-2022," No Publication, https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Main JB~ AND spend more time generating and discussing arguments and less time chasing down citations. 2~ Wiki also warns you before you disclose which means no reasonability
I’ll preempt "wiki doesn’t work" – 1~ The interp solves, yes the wiki sometimes doesn’t post wikify versions but you can still post a summary of arguments which is what the wiki asks you to do 2~ Asking doesn’t solve because it’s a question of the norm you posit and some people don’t know you 3~ Verifiability flows neg – you know they didn’t disclose but you don’t know if they’re lying. Either way, most debaters follow my interp which means risk of offense negates.3~ Preround 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. Also key for inclusion since disadvantaged people have computers more prone to lag and even 3 or 4 can crash the program for them—outweighs accessibility is a multiplier for their impacts. Disclosing in cite boxes or a summary as the title of your posititon solves—people can quickly get a summary of your position and go to open source if they need more information | 2/18/22 |
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 - Disclose Round ReportsTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Plano East AD | Judge: Alexander Yoakum Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports that say which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech for every round.Violation:Standards:1~ Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows while small school debaters are left guessing That's key knowledge because it tells you what layers debaters actually go for like theory, K or util, which is key to plan the best possible strategy against them. Round reports solve because everyone can equally access the wiki.2~ Strat – Round reports help novices understand what the best debaters go for in the 2NR and 2AR in the context of the round. This is key to education – it teaches us how to make decisions given the big picture. | 12/4/21 |
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- | 9/21/21 |
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. | 9/21/21 |
G - Theory - Evidence Ethics v3Tournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Andrew Gong, Matthew Berhe Interpretation: Cards disclosed by debaters on the NDCA LD wiki must provide sources and citations for all evidence cited in the speech that the evidence was read.Violation: Screenshots in doc – its from their blake round 5
1~ Evidence ethics- 2 internal links a~ It’s impossible to verify 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 b~ spreads the message to novices and other varsity debaters that its okay to not cite your evidence which is a terrible practice – supercharged by the fact that you are a competitor at the Harvard round robin – 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 | 2/18/22 |
G - Theory - Evidence Ethics v4Tournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: Finals | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin Interpretation: Debaters must provide full citations for sources. to clarify, publisher or author, date, and article name.Violation - outer space definintion at the bottomVote for prep skew - a~ incentivizes the aff to cite random sources that we cant verify that is legit immediately and b~ forces me to waste time in properly cite sources that you dontthat o/wa~ topic ed - means we aren’t incentivized to find good sources that have relevant applications which skills substance edb~ engagement- proves that playing field is already skewed since you came in with more time to prep and means you aren’t subject to researched scrutiny - triggers presumption since we couldn’t properly test the affc~ time skew – I’m forced to read all my authors and dates allowed while you brush past them | 2/18/22 |
G - Theory - Extra TopicalTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Eric He Interp – the affirmative may only garner offense from the resolutional bounds. To clarify, extra-t bad.Violation – I critique private space appropriation through a rejection of colonial mimicry, the attempt to reform one’s identity by imitating colonizers’ practices. whichever side’s performance better ruptures replication politics wins1~ Resolved’ before a colon denotes a formal resolution.AWS ’13 ~Army Writing Style; August 24th; Online resource dedicated to all major writing requirements in the Army; Army Writing Style, "Punctuation — The Colon and Semicolon," https://armywritingstyle.com/punctuation-the-colon-and-semicolon/~~ AND resolved:". Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor. 2~ Advocacy statement: the resolution goes further than a value statement1AC Ethnofuturism: the resolution is not a question of appropriation, but rather, a method to confront capitalismFirst is limits – all negative strategy is premised off a stable reading of the resolution. The lack of a stable mechanism lets them radically re-contextualize their aff and erase neg ground via perms. Including their advocacy authorizes any methodology or orientation tangentially related to the topic, which renders research burdens untenable.A~ Fairness is good and prior – debate’s a game that requires effective competition and negation, which makes their offense inevitable, it internal link turns clash and engagement.B~ Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters.C~ Can’t weigh the aff—it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it.D~ Inescapable – the AC conforms to every norm of debate – speed, speech times, ballots – proves they value playing the game and isolating T as the one bad rule is arbitrary.E~ Probability – ballots can’t shape our subjectivity or create broad political change but can rectify in-round skews.Second is clash – extra-t sanctions picking any interpretation for debate – incentivizes retreat from controversy and forces the neg to first characterize the aff and then debate it which eliminates the benefit of preround research. A common point of engagement ensures effective clash, which is a linear impact –A~ Negation is the necessary condition for distinguishing debate from discussion, but negation exists on a sliding scale.B~ only effective clash starts the process of critical thinking, reflexivity, and argument refinement which internal link turns any scholastic benefit of the 1ACIndependently, Our scholarship is tied to the consequences of the plan – their model lets them get through the 1AR and 2AR without addressing the NC and comparative impact and solvency debatingTVA, read the affirmative without a method of rejection of colonial mimicry and instead offer it as a framing mechanism for why appropriation is bad | 2/20/22 |
G - Theory - Fish Swims UpTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan Interpretation – 1AC must use personal knowledge, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals, to garner offense.Reid-Brinkley, Shanara (2008)," The Harsh Realities Of "Acting Black": How African-American Policy Debaters Negotiate Representation Through Racial Performance and Style" Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/reid-brinkley'shanara'r'200805'phd.pdf Taja1h AND those three different people together then you can achieve a greater truth.59 Violation – ~Extempt~Prefer1~ Pornotroping: The 1AC narrates forms of violence for ballots commodifying experience and degrading them to high school debate rounds and detaching ourselves from the violence. This turns the aff because none of your impacts are achieved only recreating cruel optimism.2~ Embodiment – Without embodiment the aff does nothing. Their method illusory so voting aff doesn’t do the benefits it discusses. It only matters if you have a connection with the advocacy, means vote neg on presumption. Also turns their method since it filters out whiteness.Campbell 97 ~Fiona, members.tripod.com/FionaCampbell/speech'acts'on'problematising'empowerment.htm, 12-04-07~ Brackets in original AND structures of oppression … ~or~ … allied with resistance to oppression. 3~ Accessibility – models of debate that don’t meet the three tiered process are uniquely inaccessible for oppressed bodies because they’re forced to invest in a system that is terminally juxtaposed in opposition to their very identity.TVA – defend the plan while incorporating organic intellectuals and identify how you have personally related to their topic | 3/26/22 |
G - Theory - Fish Swims UpTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan Interpretation – 1AC must use personal knowledge, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals, to garner offense.Reid-Brinkley, Shanara (2008)," The Harsh Realities Of "Acting Black": How African-American Policy Debaters Negotiate Representation Through Racial Performance and Style" Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/reid-brinkley'shanara'r'200805'phd.pdf Taja1h AND those three different people together then you can achieve a greater truth.59 Violation – ~Extempt~Prefer1~ Pornotroping: The 1AC narrates forms of violence for ballots commodifying experience and degrading them to high school debate rounds and detaching ourselves from the violence. This turns the aff because none of your impacts are achieved only recreating cruel optimism.2~ Embodiment – Without embodiment the aff does nothing. Their method illusory so voting aff doesn’t do the benefits it discusses. It only matters if you have a connection with the advocacy, means vote neg on presumption. Also turns their method since it filters out whiteness.Campbell 97 ~Fiona, members.tripod.com/FionaCampbell/speech'acts'on'problematising'empowerment.htm, 12-04-07~ Brackets in original AND structures of oppression … ~or~ … allied with resistance to oppression. 3~ Accessibility – models of debate that don’t meet the three tiered process are uniquely inaccessible for oppressed bodies because they’re forced to invest in a system that is terminally juxtaposed in opposition to their very identity.TVA – defend the plan while incorporating organic intellectuals and identify how you have personally related to their topic | 3/26/22 |
G - Theory - Flex Standards BadTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Javier Navarrete, William Coltzer Interpretation – Affirmative Debaters may not read ~affirming/negating~ is harder arguments.Violation – underviewPrefer-Norming – These arguments encourage terrible theory norms since you can read them in response to any shell which allows you to avoid justifying a specific practice that is good which means we can never come to any conclusions about specific norms of the activity; this is infinite abuse since you can just prep out each side is harder and be as abusive as possible. 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. This shell outweighs others since we can never endorse good norms insofar if you have skewed the creation of them. | 12/6/21 |
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 - Glizzy v1Tournament: 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. | 9/21/21 |
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 - Kant SpecTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Tuloso Midway AJ | Judge: Josh Porter ====There are several distinct ones ==== AND The chief representatives of these submovements are identified in the historical sections below. Violation: They don’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 Kantianism coming first and I wouldn’t know until the 1ar which gives them access to multiple contingent standards. CX fails A~ Not flowed B~ skews 6 min of prep during the aff C~ They can proactively lie and there’s no way to check D~ debaters can be intentionally shady.2~ Real World and Phil Ed- 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. That outweighs since debate has no pedagogical value without portable application. | 12/4/21 |
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 - Must Have ROTBTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Joey Georges Interpretation: Affirmatives must specify and separately delineate a role of the ballot in the 1ACViolation: 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 aff Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of antiblackness coming first and I wouldn’t know until the 1AR which gives them access to multiple contingent standards.2~ Real World- Critical educators 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 framing mechanism the affirmative defends and how to link offense back to it | 12/4/21 |
G - Theory - Must Wear MasksTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Immaculate Heart JL | Judge: William Coltzer, Ibbi Sheikh, Nevin Gera Interpretation: Debaters must always have their mask on unless eating or drinking.Violation: They took it offPrefer-1~ Safety- Spreading without a mask is the most probable way of spreading COVID and germs – that leads to debaters getting sick and not being able to participate in debate tournaments – this also links into happiness/mental health since tournaments will continue online debate tournaments and close down in person ones when they see an influx incases. Happiness/mental health is an independent voter because it means debaters have no motivation to do debate/participate in they’re unhappy. Inclusion is a voter since its an impact filter to everything else2~ Resolvability and Judge Intervention- masks force debaters to speak slower and more clearly. That guarantees judges catching everything on the flow in order to make the correct decision. | 12/6/21 |
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 - No CX Checks and 1AR Theory Paradigm IssuesTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: Finals | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin Interpretation: The affirmative can’t say 1AR theory is DTD. no rvi, CI and CX checks all neg interpsPrefer:Infinite abuse- Extempt | 2/18/22 |
G - Theory - No Prep TimeTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Angela Zhong, Oliver Sussman Interpretation: Affirmative debaters may not use prep time against a negative debater.Violation – it’s preemptive.Four impacts:1~ Critical thinking – informed political argumentation requires response to opposing proposals with immediate reaction. Developing responses after the fact is unrealistic in terms of deliberation: for example, court cases, OR political discussions. That outweighs - it controls the internal link between community norms and practices outside the space – any other standard begs the question of why we care.2~ Bias- People lose credibility when they need time to gather thoughts, think, or take breaks when the opponent doesn’t. That outweighs because even if debaters are right, nobody will believe them.3~ Cheating – online tournaments means prep time is used for calls, texts or other communicative purposes with experienced individuals. Communicative cheating is the worst and outweighs because it takes the debates out of the debaters hands.4~ Tournament time and Accessibility – tournaments run behind routinely, making kids stay up later than they should while debating, changing prelim structure so people cant break, and causing anxiety as people wait for delayed pairings. This also controls the IL to any argument- you can only be here because tournaments can function. Mental health outweighs – it’s an impact filter to any argument. | 2/18/22 |
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 - Permissibility and Presumption SpecTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Momo Khattak Interpretation: Debaters who make presumption arguments must specify in the text of the AC ~in the form of a list~ the set of conditions under which presumption can become relevant in the evaluation of the round. We’ve inserted examples in the doc. ~i.e. if there is some kind of defense to the AC framework or NC framework which "triggers," someone fails to extend offense, skepticism, utilitarianism, I won’t trigger presumption – it’s a preempt, drop the advocacy T + winning the framework debate etc.~Violation:Standards:1~ Engagement– the ability for me to contest the implications of presumption or form a strategy to engage the aff depends on my knowing what kind of arguments are enough to justify the judge voting on presumption.2~ Topic Education and Strat Skew– Specifying in the 1AC allows me to form a 1NC strat that doesn’t have the potential to trigger presumption or permissibility so we can have a clean substance debate. It also incentivizes them spamming presumption and permissibility triggers in the 1AR since I can’t contest which way it flows which gives them access to infinite nibs and bidirectional ground. | 11/6/21 |
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 | 2/18/22 |
G - Theory - Record SpeechesTournament: Colleyville | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Blake Andrews 1~ Interp – Debaters must have recordings of their speeches and send them if requested2~ Violation – They didn't3~ Standards –a~ Cheating – debaters can fake internet drop offs and then steal prep which decks reciprocity. O/Ws since it destroys competitive incentives and educational value since they are structurally aheadb~ Accidents possible, external conditions like power going out, wifi dropping off, or excessive background noise make it impossible to hear in real time, recordings ensure that a speech isn’t given twice, which allows them to remodify and change their strat or incite judge intervention which is the worst violation of procedural fairnessc~ Key to check clipping cards and make cheaters lose with literal proofNo regress, its disclosed on my wiki | 2/4/22 |
G - Theory - Record Speeches v2Tournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: Clements KK | Judge: Ishaan Rereddy Interp: Debaters must have recordings of their speeches and send them if requestedViolation: They didn't record, that was cx1~ Clipping- debaters can cheat and get away with clipping cards, hearing clipping in real time is near impossible unless its egregious since no one is following along the doc unconditionally. Recordings solve by having literal proof of verifiable clipping violations for theory shells or judges intervening to give an L 20. Cheating outweighs, the playing field isn’t procedurally balanced which comes prior. No regress, its disclosed on my wiki, online debate set a precedent to record so metrics are there2~ Novice accessibility – local recordings can be sent to novices to learn technical debate, 99 of rounds aren’t recorded or posted on YouTube but having source recordings for your teammates or other debaters when they reach out is good- that outweighs, accessibility is an impact filter to all arguments | 3/12/22 |
G - Theory - Santa HatTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Joey Georges Interpretation: Debaters must wear a Santa hat at the Longhorn Classic. If a fellow debater asks for a Santa hat, then you are required to give them one given that you are financially able to do so. Merry Early Christmas everyone!Violation: they don’tStandards –1~ Inclusion – 3 internal linksA~ Wearing Santa hats make debate less toxic as people associate it with good memories of the past. Empirically proven by all the feel good associated with Christmas like carols, presents, etc.B~ Embracing the holidays earlier inspires more calendar time to celebrate gratitude, especially during a time of need when some people are experiencing hardships - solves the aff as well because everybody would be incentivized to stop racial hate crimes and violenceC~ If people don’t have Santa Hats, it teaches debaters to ask others for one which is the key to bridging the divide between rich and poor people. – that signals a step to bridging the gap between black underresourced debaters and others as well which eventually spills over to resolving the aff as well | 12/4/21 |
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 |
G - Theory - Standard SpecTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Plano East HN | Judge: James Stuckert Interpretation: 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 | 2/19/22 |
G - Theory - TropicalityTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Tuloso Midway AJ | Judge: Josh Porter Interpretation: The affirmative must specify what fruit they defend with plan action.Violation: They don’tStandards-1~ Ground- the negative doesn't get access to fruit-based disads and counter-plans. Allows them to spike out of their food-based advocacies, creating a moving target for being pelted by tomatoes.2~ Limits- The aff explodes the limits of the defendable fruits under the resolution. This leads to an unreasonable neg research burden. There’s no possible way we can get lit for critical hybrid fruits like plumcots and tangelos.3~ Education- This leads to vacuous debates about which fruit the aff has to defend, and destroys tropical education. It's a race to the bottom to see who can force the juiciest abuse story out of the round. | 12/4/21 |
JF - CP - GovernmentTournament: Colleyville | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Blake Andrews CP Text: We endorse the entirety of the affirmative minus their usage and endorsement of government actionYour solvency evidence agrees with us – 1AC says attaching decolonizal pedagogy to political implementation are forms of white saviorism that strip ndigenous agency and BAD to their project.Deloria Jr. 99 – Member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Professor at University of Colorado Boulder AND predetermined ways, that it operates continuously under certain natural laws, and that the nature of every species is homogeneous, with few real deviations. | 2/4/22 |
JF - CP - Solar PanelsTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Eric He CP Text: We affirm global orbital counter-operations against appropriation of outer space by private entities except for Space-Based Solar Power. Companies investing in Space-Based Solar Power should commit to at least 40 of the Energy Produced to be distributed to indigenous, developing, and marginalized communities.Space-Based Solar Power constitutes Appropriation.Matignon 19 Louis De Gouyon Matignon 4-15-2019 "THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHINESE SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER STATIONS" https://www.spacelegalissues.com/the-legal-status-of-chinese-space-based-solar-power-stations/ (PhD in space law)Elmer AND case with satellite navigation, satellite television and commercial satellite imagery for example. Chinese Private Companies are pursuing Space-Based Solar Power.McKirdy and Fang 19 Euan McKirdy and Nanlin Fang 3-3-2019 "Space power plant and a mission to Mars: China’s new plans to conquer the final frontier" https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/asia/china-plans-solar-power-in-space-intl/index.html (Journalists at CNN)Elmer AND plant would be ready for commercial use, the Chinese media report said. Space-Based Solar Power solves Paris Goals that checks back Warming.Ravisetti 21 Monisha Ravisetti 11-8-2021 "Harvesting energy with space solar panels could power the Earth 24/7" https://www.cnet.com/news/harvesting-energy-with-space-solar-panels-could-power-the-earth-247/ (Science Writer at CNet)Elmer AND unlimited supply of renewable energy from the sun might help us do that. 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. SPSB is the only thing capable of ending Energy Poverty – just one country getting to it would have universal benefits.Aleksey Shtivelman 12, Boston JD, "Solar Power Satellites: The Right To A Spot In The World's Highest Parking Lot," https://www.bu.edu/jostl/files/2015/02/Shtivelman'web.pdf AND are used for commercial power production and cannot be converted into weapons. 139 CP solves the Case – their indicting things like Exploration and Colonization which have no benefits other than Accumulation. Space-Based Solar Power occupies just one section of Space, doesn’t expand, and the CP has distributive effects that avoids Space as a "playground" or "colonial romanticism" BUT rather uses it as a tool to combat material issues like Warming and Energy Poverty. | 2/20/22 |
JF - CP - Space ElevatorsTournament: Colleyville | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Blake Andrews Text – Private Appropriation of Outer Space except for Space Elevators is Unjust.Recognizing that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust, states ought to extend the non-appropriation principle of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to private entities.Space Elevators constitute Appropriation – they impede orbits.Matignon 19 Louis de Gouyon Matignon 3-3-2019 "LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SPACE ELEVATOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM" https://www.spacelegalissues.com/space-law-legal-aspects-of-the-space-elevator-transportation-system/ ~PhD in space law (co-supervised by both Philippe Delebecque, from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France, and Christopher D. Johnson, from Georgetown University || regularly write articles on the website Space Legal Issues so as to popularise space law and public international law~Elmer AND could also descend the tether to return cargo to the surface from orbit. Private Companies are pursuing Space Elevators.Alfano 15 Andrea Alfano 8-18-2015 "All Of These Companies Are Working On A Space Elevator" https://www.techtimes.com/articles/77612/20150818/companies-working-space-elevator.htm (Writer at the Tech Times)Elmer AND LiftPort's plans, but stuck to the Earth instead of to the moon. Yes Space Elevators – NASA confirms.Snowden 18 Scott Snowden 10-2-2018 "A colossal elevator to space could be going up sooner than you ever imagined" https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/colossal-elevator-space-could-be-going-sooner-you-ever-imagined-ncna915421 (Scott has written about science and technology for 20 years for publications around the world. He covers environmental technology for Forbes.)Elmer AND into the heavens. It could open up space to the average person." Regardless of completion, Elevators spur investment in NanotechnologyLiam O’Brien 16. University of Wollongong. 07/2016. "Nanotechnology in Space." Young Scientists Journal; Canterbury, no. 19, p. 22. AND enormous amount can be done. There is still plenty more to achieve. Nano tech solves warming Bhavya Khullar. September 4, 2017. Nanomaterials Could Combat Climate Change and Reduce Pollution. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nanomaterials-could-combat-climate-change-and-reduce-pollution/ AND , have developed a reusable nanosponge that can remove oil from contaminated seawater. 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. | 2/4/22 |
JF - DA - ChinaTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Framing issue – no you.Fettweis ‘17 (Christopher J, *Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park, "Unipolarity, Hegemony, and the New Peace," Security Studies 26:3, 423-451)cmr AND not as central to the New Peace as either liberals or neoconservatives believe. Empirics go neg – most qualified studies disprove hegemonic stability theories.Fettweis 17 –Christopher J. Fettweis is an American political scientist and the Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University. "Unipolarity, Hegemony, and the New Peace, Security Studies" 26:3, 423-451; EG) AND lighter, more liberal cousin. Something else appears to be at work. China’s not evilAmbrosio et al. 19 -*professor of political science in the Criminal Justice and Political Science Department at North Dakota State University, ~Thomas Ambrosio, Carson Schram, Professor of Political Science at North Dakota State University and teaches courts on international politics and international law and Preston Heopfne, Department of Political Science, North Dakota State University, The American securitization of China and Russia: U.S. geopolitical culture and declining unipolarity, 2019, Eurasian Geography and Economics, DOI: 10.1080/15387216.2019.1702566, DKP~ AND threat became central to the American narrative in the latter half of the 2010 US hegemony is dead and gone with Trump – treaty exits, Trump foreign policy, and rising power proveRussia and China emergence AND . Or will America also watch the decline of its empire of ideas? | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - EntrapmentTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard The risk of entrapment for a hegemon is very high – aff evidence will rely on Cold War data or flawed methodology that mis defines entrapmentEdelstein and Shifrinson 18 ~David M. Edelstein - Associate Professor of International Affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Center for Security Studies, and Department of Government at Georgetown University; Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson - BA Brandeis University, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology, He has special expertise in great power politics since 1945 and U.S. engagement in Europe and Asia; U.S. Grand Strategy in the 21st Century: The Case for Restraint; "Chapter 2: It’s a Trap"; pg. 19-21; Published by Routledge Brower~ AND deterred or foreclosed, the process of doing so creates new potential conflicts. Fear of lost credibility incentivizes US entrapment – it’s fueling aggression towards China which risks great power war in East Asia – direct negotiation or offshore balancing solves conflictEdelstein and Shifrinson 18 ~David M. Edelstein - Associate Professor of International Affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Center for Security Studies, and Department of Government at Georgetown University; Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson - BA Brandeis University, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology, He has special expertise in great power politics since 1945 and U.S. engagement in Europe and Asia; U.S. Grand Strategy in the 21st Century: The Case for Restraint; "Chapter 2: It’s a Trap"; pg. 34-35; Published by Routledge Brower~ AND interest, only entrapment explains the timing and form of the American response. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - ILO ShiftTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Decline has popularized restraint – a bipartisan coalition formed to avoid the failures of liberal hegemonyAshford 21 Emma Ashford is a Senior Fellow at the New American Engagement Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, September/October 2021, "Strategies of Restraint," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-24/strategies-restraint mvp AND nature of the coalition pushing for restraint is one of its core strengths. No empirical support for transition wars —- they misunderstand incentive structures, accommodation theory is true, and conflict is contained —- this card smokes themWohlforth 17 William C. Wohlforth, William Curti Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department of Government. "Chapter 3: Not Quite the Same as it Ever Was", in "Will China’s Rise be Peaceful? The Rise of a Great Power in Theory, History, Politics, and the Future." Oxford University Press. December 27, 2017. AND concrete evidence that hegemonic wars prevented these processes from occurring in the past. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - Iran WarTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Pursuit of heg ensures war with Iran.Ghoreishi 6/8 Shahed Ghoreishi ~a U.S. foreign policy analyst, focusing on U.S. grand strategy and the Middle East. He’s previously published pieces for the Huffington Post, the Atlantic, and CSIS’s cogitASIA program. He graduated from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies with concentrations in American foreign policy and Middle East studies~, May 08, 2019, "Bolton, Iran, and Hegemonic Hubris," LobeLog, https://lobelog.com/bolton-iran-and-hegemonic-hubris/ SM AND this Iranian regime, which I think is an assumption untethered to history." Conflict escalates – heg creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that puts both countries on edge and means even small conflicts become deadly.Giglio 19 Mike Giglio, 7-23-2019, "Iran Is Acting Like the International Villain of Trump’s Prophecy," Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/dangers-multiply-us-iran-standoff/594505/ SM AND strike and pull America down the road into an open-ended conflict? War with Iran is devastating – new military tech, oil volatility, and great power drawn in.Haltiwanger 19 John Haltiwanger ~BA in History from St. Mary's College of Maryland and an MSc in International Relations from the University of Glasgow~, 9-19-2019, "Trump and Iran may be on the brink of a war that would likely be devastating to both sides," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-iran-near-brink-of-a-war-that-would-likely-devastate-both-sides-2019-5 SM AND , evidence suggests a war with Iran would be devastating in myriad ways. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - MiningTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: Finals | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ishaan Bhat, James Stuckert, Andrew Qin The aff bans the mining of outer space by private entities which is necessary to solve for resource scarcity and overpopulation – that causes extinction through nuclear war | 2/18/22 |
JF - DA - PrimacyTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Restraint works – only offshore balancing locks in primacy, ensures domestic development, and checks terrorism and proliferationWalt and Mearsheimer 16 JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. STEPHEN M. WALT is Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, July/August 2016, "The Case for Offshore Balancing," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-06-13/case-offshore-balancing mvp AND . In Asia, the United States may indeed be the indispensable nation. Only restraint solves nuke war BUT the transition would be peaceful and create more resilient global governance, which is goldilocks and balances security with cohesion – that straight turns every answerPampinella 19 ~Stephenis Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz. 1/23. "The Internationalist Disposition and US Grand Strategy." https://thedisorderofthings.com/2019/01/23/the-internationalist-disposition-and-us-grand-strategy/~~ AND own hierarchical position in world politics or engaging in hypocritical forms of dominance. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - ProliferationTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Hegemony destroys non-proliferation regimes and causes global nuclear cascades – throw out any ev that isn’t specific to Trumpian anti-diplomacy.Heer 17 (Jeet, staff writer at The New Republic, awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and award-winning author, "The Real Danger of Trump’s Nuclear Policy Isn’t Armageddon," The New Republic, 10-24-17, https://newrepublic.com/article/145479/real-danger-trumps-nuclear-policy-isnt-armageddon) AG AND is a world where so many more conflicts could end in nuclear war. Proliferation emboldens leaders and causes nuclear war – psychological pressures and decision-making biases make escalation resulting from regional revisionism inevitable.Cohen, PhD, ‘18 AND fear of imminent nuclear escalation will cause them to authorize restrained foreign policies. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - Sino RussiaTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Pursuit of hegemony leads to Sino-Russia alliance and is unsustainable.Porter, DPhil, 19 AND smaller, Washington should take steps to make the pool of adversaries smaller. A strong Sino-Russian alliance combined with expanded US military presence ensures joint retaliation — that escalates to the use of nuclear forceKlare 18 – Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. (Michael T., "The Pentagon Is Planning a Three-Front ‘Long War’ Against China and Russia," April 4, 2018, https://fpif.org/the-pentagon-is-planning-a-three-front-long-war-against-china-and-russia/)//sy AND still long-war planning into an actual long war with deadly consequences. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - TerrorismTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard Hegemony fails and propagates terrorism – it justifies intervention and empirically causes blowback.Bandow 19 (Doug, senior fellow @ Cato Institute and JD Stanford, 6-2-2019, "Understanding the Failure of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Albright Doctrine," National Interest, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/understanding-failure-us-foreign-policy-albright-doctrine-60477) AG AND , which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism. Unipolarity is specifically responsible for the globalization of extremism – that makes heg unsustainable.Ibrahimi 18 (2/19/18; S. Yaqub Ibrahimi, ~researcher and instructor of political science. PhD @ Carleton University~ "Unipolar politics and global peace: a structural explanation of the globalizing jihad"; taylor and francis https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17467586.2018.1428763?needAccess=true) AND disrupt peace and security at all domestic, regional, and global levels. | 2/5/22 |
JF - DA - Xi LashoutTournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Austin Broussard China decline isn’t inevitableRobert May 20, Postgraduate Masters’s student in International Relations at Queen Mary University of London. He is also the CEO of a non-profit multinational education provider (ABE) a member of the Royal Overseas League, a member of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, and a Friend of UNESCO, "Is War Inevitable Between the US and China?" Atlas Institute for International Affairs, 9/7/2020, https://www.internationalaffairshouse.org/is-war-inevitable-between-the-us-and-china/ AND S. to adopt overly competitive policies’ (Glaser, 2019:52). China doesn’t want zero-sum polarity even with Biden. Xi transitions to avoid lash-out. He will back out of Taiwan and the SCS if Biden stops high-level Taipei visits and cooperate in bilateral agreements which proves Xi is reactionary.Rudd, 21 (Kevin Rudd, KEVIN RUDD is President of the Asia Society, in New York, and previously served as Prime Minister of Australia, "Short of War," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-02-05/kevin-rudd-usa-chinese-confrontation-short-of-war, 2021)ILake-NC AND climate will help stabilize the U.S.-Chinese relationship more generally. | 2/5/22 |
JF - K - CosmobiopoliticsTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan Cosmobiopolitics constitutes the governance of Outer Space as a shared resource mean to be used to further Human Progress. The Aff’s managerial at "saving" space merely sustains space as a common good for "joint usage" to further exploitation.Damjanov 15, Katarina. "The matter of media in outer space: Technologies of cosmobiopolitics." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33.5 (2015): 889-906. (Faculty of Arts, University of Western Australia)Elmer AND reframing of governmental obsessions with discourses of territory, security, and population. The Affirmative obfuscates the intricate connection between the "Public" sector and "Militarism" – the Aff is merely a smokescreen to hide military development of outer space in new forms.Sheehan 7, Michael. The international politics of space. Routledge, 2007. (Nancy and Peter Meinig Family Investigator in the Life Sciences, Assistant Professor)Elmer AND would in the long run enhance the effectiveness of US armed forces.31 The desire to manage Debris to protect Satellites is a form of cosmo-biopolitical control which determines the productive capacity of objects and people in terms of risk analysis.Damjanov 15, Katarina. "The matter of media in outer space: Technologies of cosmobiopolitics." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33.5 (2015): 889-906. (Faculty of Arts, University of Western Australia)Elmer AND mediation practices and whose governance incorporates their living and living-like populations. The Impact is unending war and environmental catastrophe.Craven 19 ~Matt Craven (Professor of International Law, SOAS University of London, United Kingdom). "‘Other Spaces’: Constructing the Legal Architecture of a Cold War Commons and the Scientific-Technical Imaginary of Outer Space". European Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Issue 2, May 2019, Pages 547–572, Accessed 1/12/22. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/30/2/547/5536739 Xu~ AND crisis, which one may take to be a remorseless instrumentalization of nature. The alternative is Worldism – the refusal of international relations and specialization as dictated by militarism in favor of epistemological interventions into the exercise of Space as a carceral apparatus.Agathangelou and Ling 09 Anna M. Agathangelou is an Associate Professor in the Departments of Political Science and Women’s Studies at York University, Canada and co-director of the Global Change Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus, L.H.M. Ling is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Inter- national Affairs at The New School, New York, USA., Transforming World Politics: From empire to multiple worlds, The New International Relations Series, 2009. AND aspects of indigenous ontologies by formalizing them in Western institutions (Shilliam 2008). | 3/26/22 |
JF - K - CosmobiopoliticsTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Eric He, Ausha Curry, Balaji Gopalakrishnan Cosmobiopolitics constitutes the governance of Outer Space as a shared resource mean to be used to further Human Progress. The Aff’s managerial at "saving" space merely sustains space as a common good for "joint usage" to further exploitation.Damjanov 15, Katarina. "The matter of media in outer space: Technologies of cosmobiopolitics." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33.5 (2015): 889-906. (Faculty of Arts, University of Western Australia)Elmer AND reframing of governmental obsessions with discourses of territory, security, and population. The Affirmative obfuscates the intricate connection between the "Public" sector and "Militarism" – the Aff is merely a smokescreen to hide military development of outer space in new forms.Sheehan 7, Michael. The international politics of space. Routledge, 2007. (Nancy and Peter Meinig Family Investigator in the Life Sciences, Assistant Professor)Elmer AND would in the long run enhance the effectiveness of US armed forces.31 The desire to manage Debris to protect Satellites is a form of cosmo-biopolitical control which determines the productive capacity of objects and people in terms of risk analysis.Damjanov 15, Katarina. "The matter of media in outer space: Technologies of cosmobiopolitics." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33.5 (2015): 889-906. (Faculty of Arts, University of Western Australia)Elmer AND mediation practices and whose governance incorporates their living and living-like populations. The Impact is unending war and environmental catastrophe.Craven 19 ~Matt Craven (Professor of International Law, SOAS University of London, United Kingdom). "‘Other Spaces’: Constructing the Legal Architecture of a Cold War Commons and the Scientific-Technical Imaginary of Outer Space". European Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Issue 2, May 2019, Pages 547–572, Accessed 1/12/22. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/30/2/547/5536739 Xu~ AND crisis, which one may take to be a remorseless instrumentalization of nature. The alternative is Worldism – the refusal of international relations and specialization as dictated by militarism in favor of epistemological interventions into the exercise of Space as a carceral apparatus.Agathangelou and Ling 09 Anna M. Agathangelou is an Associate Professor in the Departments of Political Science and Women’s Studies at York University, Canada and co-director of the Global Change Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus, L.H.M. Ling is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Inter- national Affairs at The New School, New York, USA., Transforming World Politics: From empire to multiple worlds, The New International Relations Series, 2009. AND aspects of indigenous ontologies by formalizing them in Western institutions (Shilliam 2008). | 3/26/22 |
JF - NC - KantTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Andrew Gong, Matthew Berhe 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 themNo new 1AR framework justifications – Anything else kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement off a lack of it in the 1AC – It also justifies overloading the 2NR with new arguments.Offense1~ 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 AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. 2~ Property rights in space can be consistent with international lawSimberg 12 ~(Rand, MSE in technical management from West Coast University, recognized as an expert in space transportation by the Office of Technology Assessment) "Homesteading the Final Frontier A Practical Proposal for Securing Property Rights in Space," Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 2012, https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Rand-Simberg-Homesteading-the-Final-Frontier.pdf~~ TDI AND provides support for the concept of individual claims off planet under Article II. 3~ Space appropriation and exploration originates from private companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. Preventing such is a restriction on the ability of companies to set and pursue their ends and these companies gain contracts with the government for projects which turns promise breaking offense. | 2/18/22 |
JF - NC - Kant v2Tournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Angela Zhong, Oliver Sussman The standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Theoretical justifications outweigh – | 2/18/22 |
JF - T - FrameworkTournament: Colleyville | Round: Octas | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Kristen Arnold Interpretation - the affirmative can only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation of their plan text"Resolved" requires a policy.Merriam Webster '18 (Merriam Webster; 2018 Edition; Online dictionary and legal resource; Merriam Webster, "resolve," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve; RP)
Resolved requires policy actionLouisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong AND Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1) Three Standards to Prefer:First - Fairness – radically re-contextualizing the resolution lets them defend any method tangentially related to the topic exploding Limits, which erases neg ground via perms and renders research burdens untenable by eviscerating predictable limits. Procedural questions come first – debate is a game and it makes no sense to skew a competitive activity as it requires effective negation which incentivizes argument refinement, but skewed burdens deck pedagogical engagement.Second - Clash – picking any grounds for debate precludes the only common point of engagement, which obviates preround research and incentivizes retreat from controversy by eliminating any effective clash. Only the process of negation distinguishes debate and discussion by necessitating iterative testing and effective engagement, but an absence of constant refinement dooms revolutionary potential.Third - Movement Lawyering Skills – contingent, focused debates around locus points of difference are key to develop activists skills for political justice.Archer 18, Deborah N. "Political Lawyering for the 21st Century." Denv. L. Rev. 96 (2018): 399. (Associate Professor of Clinical Law at NYU School of Law)Elmer AND tools and should consider political lawyering’s potential to empower law students and communities. TVA – 1~ Affirm that the appropriation of outer space is unjust because it causes violence to east Asian countriesThe TVA is terminal defense – proves compatibility of our Models AND Solvency Deficits proves ground for engagement.SSD solves – it preaches self-reflexive ideologies that are key to check back dogmatism – arbitrarily bracketing off topics of discussion creates a groupthink mentality that dooms Social Movements. | 2/5/22 |
JF - T - No LARPTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Angela Zhong, Oliver Sussman Resolved in LD means statement of valuesUPitt ND University Of Pittsburgh Communications Services Webteam, copyright 2015-21, "Basic Definitions," Department of Communication , https://www.comm.pitt.edu/basic-definitions CHO AND "The Civil War," "genetic engineering," or "Great Books." Is means is Definition of is (Entry 1 of 4) present tense third-person singular of BE dialectal present tense first-person and third-person singular of BE dialectal present tense plural of BEWebster ND Definition of IS," Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is IS Dialectical present tense means logical coherence which implies no implementationYour Dictionary ND, "Dialectical Meaning," No Publication, https://www.yourdictionary.com/dialectical Cho AND or pertaining to dialectic; logically reasoned through the exchange of opposing ideas. "BE" is a linking verb, not an action verb so implementation is incoherentGrammar Monster ND "Linking Verbs," Grammar Monster, https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/linking'verbs.htm CHO AND thirsty. (Here, the subject is described as thirsty.) Violation: They defend "'''''''" as the actor and implement an '''''' which isn’t resolutional OR they are extra T1~ Limits and Ground - justifies infinite unpredictable aff advantage ground and extra topical enforcement mechanisms which wreck research burdens while spiking core generics.2~ Semantics o/w –a~ Precision – they can arbitrarily jettison words which decks ground and preparation because there is no stasis pointb~ Jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the authority to vote aff if it wasn’t legitimatec~ Durability – grammatical correctness makes debaters effective academics and professionalsd~ Legal ed –Heath 06 Brad, reporter at USA Today. "Small mistakes cause big problems" November 21, 2006. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-20-typo-problems'x.htm IB 3~ Phil Ed – creates better ethical subjectivity and critical thinking that o/ws on uniqueness to LD, switch to policy and LARP on the water topic – solves all your offenseText over spirit – a~ accountabtility TVA: Read a phil aff that affirms that private appropriation is unjust with a util FW and don’t defend implementation | 2/18/22 |
JF - T - UnjustTournament: Colleyville | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Blake Andrews 1~ Interp – Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary.Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/ Elmer 2~ Violation – The Aff is a positive action – they expand the scope of ilaw and implement a governmental action and generate offense off of it. Independenly, they fiat that they use colonial pedagogy – solve war by regulating space3~ Standards –a~ Limits – making the topic bi-directional explodes predictability – it means that Aff’s can both increase non-exist property regimes in space AND decrease appropriation by private actors – makes the topic untenable.b~ Ground – wrecks Neg Generics – we can’t say appropriation good since the 1AC can create new views on Outer Space Property Rights that circumvent our Links since they can say "Global Commons" approach solves.Independently - the Plan is both Extra-T - since it establishes a new property rights regime AND Effects-T - since the PTD ISNT INTRINSICALLY a reduction on Private Property in Space, it involves actions like creating a governance system AND redistribution/cooperation - both of which are voters for Limits and Predictability4~ TVA – just defend that space appropriation is bad. | 2/4/22 |
JF - Theory - Debris SpecTournament: Harvard Round Robin | Round: Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Andrew Qin, Matthew Berhe, Alan George Interp - If the Affirmative specifies "Appropriation that produces Debris" – they must clearly de-lineate a clear parameter and definition for what "produces Debris" constitutes.Violation – they don’t. They will outline particular examples BUT that doesn’t meet since they haven’t produced a metric or brightline for determining what type of appropriation is banned by the Plan.Three Implications:1~ The term "debris" itself is meaningless in international agreements – impossible to come to consensus – independently means you Vote Negative on Presumption since the Plan does nothing since everyone will deny they produce "Debris".Munters 16 Ward Munters 2016 "Space debris conundrum for international law makers" https://room.eu.com/article/space-debris-conundrum-for-international-law-makers (Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, Belgium)Elmer AND could freely remove pieces of debris that pose a threat in Earth orbit. 2~ Shiftiness and Ground – without anything de-lineated in the 1AC – it can become as limiting or under-limiting as they deem strategic given the 1NC which makes Negative prep impossible since they will always shift the ground of "what produces debris". Fairness is a voter since its necessary for Debate to continue to occur.2~ Real World- Policy makers will always specify how the mandates of the plan should be endorsed. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, states can circumvent the Aff’s policy since there is no delineated way to enforce the affirmative which means there’s no way to actualize any of their solvency arguments.CX checks is arbitrary and unlimiting – allows them to change from round-to-round which ruins pre-round prep since we can’t predict it. | 2/18/22 |
MA - DA - PovertyTournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: Franklin AS | Judge: Devin Hernandez Advocacy Journalism is the only way to make social movements effective.Opara ’20 (Ndidi Opara; Based in Eastside Seattle, Ndidi Opara (she/her) is a community organizer, journalist, and researcher. Her published work spans from research on the American Color-line in Rap Advocacy in the Journal of Student Research to op-ed's on educational inequality through being journalism fellow with StudentVoice. Her political beliefs are radically left, economically anti-capitalist and socially a radical progressive abolitionist; published 2020; "The Importance of journalistic advocacy"; https://www.yipinstitute.com/articles/the-importance-of-journalistic-advocacy; accessed 2-24-2022; Elkins AM) AND advocates and journalists generally must consider as journalism continues to change and grow. That’s uniquely key for poverty reduction—movements educate the public and pressure the government to pass reforms.Bebbington ’06 (Anthony Bebbington; University of Manchester - Institute for Development Policy and Management; published 8-1-2006; "Social Movements and the Politicization of Chronic Poverty Policy"; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1753621; accessed 2-24-2022; Elkins AM) AND difficulty of sustaining coherence and convergence among actors, and tensions within movements. Objectivity justifies police violence by finding excuses for law enforcement in order to appear balanceMeyer 20 ~Will Meyer, writer at Columbia Journalism Review and the New Republic, 2-6-2020, "The Abuses of Objectivity," New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/156486/abuses-objectivity~~/Kankee AND that saving journalism will mean saving it from a false notion of objectivity. | 3/10/22 |
MA - DA - WarmingTournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: Franklin AS | Judge: Devin Hernandez Desire for "Objectivity" and its impartiality results in a false balance in the name of media neutrality that results in the denial of the existence of climate changeBrüggemann and Engesser 17 ~Michael Brüggemann, educator at the University of Hamburg, and Sven Engesser, educator at the Technical University of Dresden, 2017, "Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change," Research Gate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312015168'Beyond'false'balance'How'interpretive'journalism'shapes'media'coverage'of'climate'change~~/Kankee AND data with survey data (following the model introduced in Dearing (1995)). Advocacy Journalism is key to Solve Climate Change:1~ Motivates organization to reduce emissions at the local levelPetersen et al. 19 ~Alexander Michael Petersen, Associate Professor at UC Merced, Emmanuel M. Vincent, Research Scientist with a PhD at the University Pierre et Marie Curie and a post-doctoral fellowship at MIT, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling, professor at UC Merced with a PhD from UC San Diego, 2019, "Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians," Nature Communications, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4~~/Kankee AND , which all together hinders prospects for rapid public action on CC41. Results 2~ Pressures policy makers to pass active legislation to combat warmingLueddeke 19. Jack Lueddeke. September 16, 2019. Advocacy Journalism and Why the World Needs It. https://envhumanities.sites.gettysburg.edu/environmental-journalism/week-4/advocacy-journalism-why-the-world-needs-it/?fbclid=IwAR39i1ZxUhnGAGn5gcdZ1pjuI8V5q8P7zbw8RYX1FAkRu671kmA7DpqZE38 AND so people will stand up and join the fight to save the Earth. 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. | 3/10/22 |
MA - NC - Kant v1Tournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pheonix Pittman The standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Theoretical justifications outweigh –1~ Frameworks are essentially T debates about the word ought which proves the better model of debate is what matters.2~ Turns substance – it doesn’t matter how true a philosophy is if it can’t be engaged or is impossible to learn from – even if Kant was correct, we shouldn’t use his philosophy in debate specifically.3~ Exclusionary rule – we’ve won Agonism is unfair which means all their substantive arguments should be presumed false – the only reason they seem true is because it was impossible to engage in the first place.4~ No 1AC stance means shouldn’t get 1AR clarificationPrefer non extinction intent-based frameworks1~ Predictability – every individual engages within freedom and twhen going to school or using public infrastructure which means it’s the one political engagement everyone is aware of.2~ Political Education – politicians have to understand the categorical imperative and the process of deontology in order to know what powers they have and what they have to provide citizens. E.g. german governments prove3~ 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 them4~ Resolvability – other debates create a mess of weighing and link turns, but using Kant is easily resolvable because it becomes a question of whether or not it violates5~ 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.Offense~1~ Objectivity censors’ journalists’ personal views and biases- that’s non universalizableGreven 21 Greven, Alec, "Speech and Sovereignty: A Kantian Defense of Freedom of Expression" (2021). Honors Theses. 1579. AND respect the unity of their agency and treat others with equal moral standing. ~2~ Journalists are required to respect those they report on, thus, advocacy journalism is required to alleviate sufferingLeshilo 18 Thabo Leshilo ~A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Applied Ethics for Professionals.~ "Morality and Journalists: Objectivity versus Duty of Care" 13 July 2018, Johannesburg https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/26530/Morality20and20Journalists20(markup)'2.pdf?sequence=1 AND ordinarily expect another human being to help to alleviate his or her suffering. | 3/11/22 |
MA - NC - NibbleTournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pheonix Pittman 1~ In used as a function word to indicate means, medium, or instrumentality but the rez doesn’t specify so vote neg on presumption2~ a "used when expressing rates or ratios; in, to, or for each; per" but there are no numbers in the rez3~ democracy The practice or principles of social equality but its logically impossible to be inside principles.4~ free conveying only the broad sense; not literal, so literal objectivity is impossible, vote neg on presumption5~ press Move or cause to move into a position of contact with something by exerting continuous physical force, but theres no movement in the rez | 3/11/22 |
MA - T - ATournament: TFA State | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pheonix Pittman Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a democracy in which a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy"A" is an indefinite article that modifies "democracy" in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a VACCUM, not in a particular instanceCCC ("Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers", http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ AND the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class "Democracy" is a generic indefinite singular.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 "a democracy" – 1~ upward entailment test – "in a democracy, a free press ought to prioritize objectivity" doesn’t entail that "in a government, , a free press ought to prioritize objectivity " because it doesn’t mean compulsory voting in dictatorships, 2~ adverb test – "in a democracy, a free press usually ought to prioritize objectivity " doesn’t mean anything substantially different from the rezViolation: 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 – the EIU says there are 75 full or flawed democracies but even that’s not an agreed upon brightline – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff –~3~ TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves all your offense | 3/11/22 |
MA - T - FrameworkTournament: TFA State | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Joseph Georges, Avery Wilson, Alexis Antonakakis Our Interpretation is the affirmative should instrumentally defend the resolution – hold the line, clearly not topical, anything new is either extra-T since it includes the non-topical parts of the Aff or effects-T since it’s a future result of the advocacy which both link to our offense.Resolved requires policy actionLouisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong AND Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1) Free Press are institutional media.Cambridge Dictionary No Date "Free Press" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/free-press Elmer First - Fairness – radically re-contextualizing the resolution lets them defend any method tangentially related to the topic exploding Limits, erases neg ground via perms and renders research burdens untenable by eviscerating predictable limits. Procedural questions come first – debate is a game and it makes no sense to skew a competitive activity as it requires effective negation which incentivizes argument refinement, but skewed burdens deck pedagogical engagement.Second - Clash – picking any grounds for debate precludes the only common point of engagement, which obviates preround research and incentivizes retreat from controversy by eliminating any effective clash. Only the process of negation distinguishes debate and discussion by necessitating iterative testing and effective engagement, but an absence of constant refinement dooms revolutionary potential.Third - Movement Lawyering Skills – contingent, focused debates around locus points of difference are key to develop activists skills for political justice.Archer 18, Deborah N. "Political Lawyering for the 21st Century." Denv. L. Rev. 96 (2018): 399. (Associate Professor of Clinical Law at NYU School of Law)Elmer AND not often forced to struggle through them to resolution in real world scenarios— TVA – Affirm that News Media cannot conduct Conservative Advocacy and must be Objective to overcorrect for Racist Modelling – solves Social Justice/aligns Journalism w/ Black Movements.The TVA is terminal defense – proves compatibility of our Models AND Solvency Deficits proves ground for engagement.SSD solves – it preaches self-reflexive ideologies that are key to check back dogmatism – arbitrarily bracketing off topics of discussion creates a groupthink mentality that dooms Social Movements.No RVIs or impact turns, we’ve presented a model of debate and if you have a net better one, we shouldn’t lose for it, instead we should continue substantive engagement. | 3/26/22 |
ND - CP - ICJTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Momo Khattak ~A just government ought to~ request the International Court of Justice issue an advisory opinion over whether they ought to ~establish an unconditional right to strike~. ~A just government~ ought to abide by the outcome of the advisory opinion.Solves – the ICJ will rule in favor of an unconditional right to strike.Seifert ’18 (Achim; Professor of Law at the University of Jena, and adjunct professor at the University of Luxembourg; December 2018; "The protection of the right to strike in the ILO: some introductory remarks"; CIELO Laboral; http://www.cielolaboral.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/seifert'noticias'cielo'n11'2018.pdf; Accessed: 11-3-2021; AU) AND 3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. US compliance ensures faith in global democratic institutions – solves nuclear war.Hawksley ’16 ~Humphrey; formerly the BBC’s Beijing Bureau Chief and author of The Third World War: A Novel of Global Conflict and Asian Waters: American, China, and the Global Paradox; 11-19-2016; "Trump makes International Law Crucial for Peace"; Humphrey Hawksley; https://www.humphreyhawksley.com/trump-makes-international-law-crucial-for-peace/; Accessed 4-1-2020; AH~ AND establish the authority of the Security Council and reassert the primacy of law." Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked AND course the immediate post-nuclear results for Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. | 11/6/21 |
ND - NC - KantTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Michael Harris 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. 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 themI defend the squo so Negate:1~ Strikes violate individual autonomy by exercising coercion.Gourevitch 18 ~Alex; Brown University; "The Right to Strike: A Radical View," American Political Science Review; 2018; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0003055418000321~~ Justin AND liberties nor the related laws that strikers violate when using certain coercive tactics. 2~ Means to an end: employees ignore their duty to help their patients in favor of higher wages which treats them as a means to an end.3~ Free-riding: strikes are a form of free-riding since those who don’t participate still reap the benefits.Dolsak and Prakash 19 ~Nives and Aseem; We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs; "Climate Strikes: What They Accomplish And How They Could Have More Impact," 9/14/19; Forbes; https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2019/09/14/climate-strikes-what-they-accomplish-and-how-they-could-have-more-impact/?sh=2244a9bd5eed~~ Justin AND , a large number of people have a strong preference for climate action. | 11/6/21 |
ND - NC - LayTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Eagan VK | Judge: Melanie Cohn FrameworkI negate the resolution Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee an unconditional right to strikeThe value is morality since ought indicates a moral obligationThe value criterion is maximizing expected well-being which means causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.There are two main reasons for this:Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.In summary, if I can prove to you that reducing intellectual property protections would have a good impact on the world, then you should vote for the affirmative in today’s debate.Observation: as the resolution indicates, the affirmative must defend an unconditional right to strike. This means that the Affirmative must defend that anyone regardless of job or occupation has a fundamental right to strike.Merriam Webster ND, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconditional sid This means that the negative may agree that some strikes are good BUT that an unconditional right to strike would be bad. For example, the right to strike through protests would be fine but shooting up neighborhoods to bring attention to something would not be fine by the negative.Contention 1 is innovationGlobal 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. Contention 2 is HealthHospital Strikes are devastating to public health infrastructure and patient care and sky-rocket costs – hospital strikes are relatively low now but the Plan green-lights more aggressive Strike actions.Masterson 17 Les Masterson 8-15-2017 "Nursing strikes can cause harm well beyond labor relations" https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nursing-strikes-can-cause-harm-well-beyond-labor-relations/447627/ (Senior Managing Editor at Quinstreet)Elmer AND about $70,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. High Hospital Costs force closures – COVID puts them on the brink.Thompson 2-26 Dennis Thompson 2-26-2021 "Pandemic Is Hitting Hospitals Hard, Including Their Bottom Line" https://consumer.healthday.com/2-26-pandemic-is-hitting-hospitals-hard-including-their-bottom-line-2650625725.html (Healthday Reporter)Elmer AND CEO of the Charleston Area Medical Center and Health System in West Virginia. Hospitals are the critical internal link for pandemic preparedness.Al Thobaity 20, Abdullelah, and Farhan Alshammari. "Nurses on the frontline against the COVID-19 pandemic: an Integrative review." Dubai Medical Journal 3.3 (2020): 87-92. (Associate Professor of Nursing at Taif University)SJDH AND disaster, responsible people will do all but the impossible to save lives. | 11/5/21 |
ND - T - ATournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Javier Navarrete, William Coltzer Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a just government in which an unconditional right of workers to strike ought to be recognized."A" is an indefinite article that modifies "democracy" in the resCCC ("Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers", http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ AND the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class "Democracy" is a generic indefinite singular.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".) Violation: they spec ~x~Standards:~1~ Semantics outweigh – the counter-interp arbitrarily random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation. 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 means they can defend any subset of governments which means over 200 affs.~3~ TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves all your offense | 12/6/21 |
ND - T - UnconditionalTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Michael Harris 1~ Interpretation: The affirmative must defend an unconditional right to strike. This means that the Affirmative must defend that anyone regardless of job or occupation has a fundamental right to strike.Merriam Webster ND, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconditional sid AND promise even though the other party has not performed according to the bargain. 2~ Violation – They only grant the Right to Strike to ~x group~. That by definition is a condition since they condition the right to strike on a particular occupation.Jensen ’18 (Eric; co-director of the Stanford Rule of Law Program, in collaboration with USAID, The Asia Foundation, and Stanford Law School; April 2018; "Introduction to the Laws of Timor-Leste"; Stanford Law School; https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Timor-Leste-Constitutional-Rights.pdf; Accessed: 10-30-2021; AU) AND strike is important to give individuals the power to defend their labor rights. 3~ Standards –a~ Limits – there are endless conditions the aff can place on the right to strike – i.e based on occupation, national holidays, location of strike, etc. That makes the topic untenable since the Aff can just infinitely specify any condition or permutation of conditions which makes predictable preparation and in-depth clash impossible.b~ Neg Ground – specifying scenarios lets affs spike out of core, reduction-based disads like Bizcon and Small Businesses. Links are already non-existent on this topic – letting affs impose restrictions on RTS makes it even narrower.4~ TVA – read this aff but defend whole res. | 11/6/21 |
ND - Theory - Must Defend SO TopicTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Javier Navarrete, William Coltzer Interpretation: On the 2021 November-December topic, teams must defend the 2021 September-October topic.Violation: They don’tPrefer-1~ Debatability- a) Actor spec - No one in academia has defined a just government in relation to politics - that decks aff research and means we can't even debate the topic. Ask yourself why there's no full res affs on this topic and why people just read T-Just Government and find ONE bad thing a government has done and win the round off that - it literally punishes kids who try to debate the topic b) Inherency - jurisdictional strikes are legal but whipsaw strikes aren't along with other strikes like wildcat strikes that are conditional which means there's no literature about all strikes or inherency about "unconditional right to strike" - inherency determines whether an aff can be evaluated ~this forces kids off of the topic which answers all of their counterinterp offense~ c) Solvency - no one in the literature says that recognition leads to an increase in strikes which is what every aff derives their offense from which is why there's also no neg disads because no one writes about it - the 1AR must point cards and solvency advocates to prove that there is literature because the burden of proof is on them2~ Disease Education- Researching IPR for medicines forces debaters to learn about how variants spread and how to prevent it from happening, incentivizing them to teach others especially during COVID. That’s key to solve for long-term disease impacts since the general population will be more informed, allowing for more debaters to participate as well.3~ Accessibility- two internal links - 1~ Small schools are able to engage in debates because everybody has already disclosed massive amounts of prep from previous tournaments in the topic 2~ Seniors doing college apps who don’t have the time to prep for the topic are still able to debate. Low senior participation for this tournament proves uniqueness for our shell. | 12/6/21 |
ND - Theory - Unified Solvency AdvocateTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Jugal Amodwala, Tej Gedela, Sophie Wilczynski Interpretation: If the affirmative delineates specific functions of its advocacy as normal means i.e. enforcement, actor, definitions of laws, etc, then it must have a unified solvency advocate that agrees with all those specifications.Violation: Courts are normal meansUnconditional means preventing from adding additional exceptions to international law.Negate-1~ Limits- Not having a unified solvency advocate that agrees with all your "normal means" specifications allow you to choose any permutation of specifications which explodes neg prep burden. Unified solvency advocates grant sufficient aff flexibility while still ensuring a reasonable case list since specification all comes from one source.2~ Ground- They can choose any permutation of best definition for unconditional, recognition, AND right to strike that suites them, the best enforcement mechanism, the actor, and anything else all with any exceptions they want in conjunction with each other which makes it really easy for them to delink core negative ground like enforcement das, circumvention das, process cp, etc which is supercharged by no normal means on the topic. | 12/6/21 |
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 | 9/21/21 |
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 |
| |
2/19/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/26/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/26/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
11/5/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/4/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/5/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/26/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/10/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/11/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
3/12/22 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
12/6/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | yutom622@gmailcom |
|