| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| Loyola | 1 | Perry JA | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Syosset AH | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Southlake Carrol EP | Julian Kuffour |
|
|
| |
| NSD Camp | 1 | Daniel Nam | Zachary Siegel |
|
|
| |
| NSD Camp | 4 | Eli Leadham | Taj Robinson |
|
|
| |
| UK | 1 | Strath Haven LP | Saketh Kotapati |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC- Harney and Moten |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Syosset AH | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1AC- Kant |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Julian Kuffour 1AC- Medical Marijuana |
| NSD Camp | 1 | Opponent: Daniel Nam | Judge: Zachary Siegel 1AC- Pettit |
| NSD Camp | 4 | Opponent: Eli Leadham | Judge: Taj Robinson 1AC- Edelman |
| UK | 1 | Opponent: Strath Haven LP | Judge: Saketh Kotapati 1AC- COVID |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0-Contact InfoTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any | 8/25/21 |
0--DebateDrillsTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any | 8/25/21 |
Baudi vs T affsTournament: NSD Camp | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eli Leadham | Judge: Taj Robinson | 7/8/21 |
Contractarianism NCTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Syosset AH | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1 Disagreement – Externalist theories fail to explain why some agents have the differing motivation for actions – internalism solves by showing how agents’ motivations are dictated by internal desires. Markovitz AND motivated by genuine normative reasons (or even that some of us are). 2 Regress – a priori knowledge is merely an acceptance of an individual’s conception of rationality. Macintyre 81. AND only such authority as it chooses to confer upon them by adopting them. 3 Empirically proven – the competition between competing externalists modes of ethics has been going for centuries. Leiter AND agreement on any foundational moral principle because of ignorance, irrationality, or partiality 4 Motivation – A. Externalist ethics collapse to internalism because agents will only follow external demands if they are consistent with their internal account of the good. For instance, citizens only follow the law insofar as its consistent with their internal beliefs, even when external value structures are being placed upon them. B. Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agent has unique motivation and there is no way to combine these beliefs into a unified ethic. Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Agents must engage in the project of mutual self-restraint as to not impede upon the moral authority of others. Stanford. AND and supportive government that will be discussed in the final section becomes possible. Prefer additionally: 1 Actor specificity – states are not moral entities but derive authority from the contracts that allows them to constrain action. This outweighs on empiricism; states aren’t bound by moral obligations, but they are by their contracts to other entities. 2 Collapses – Contracts takes into account all other ethical theories and allows agents to engage under the index of their own good so long as they don’t violate the constraints of their other. The NC functions as a meta constraint – meaning indicts don’t take it out but they rather prove the truth of a theory under a particular index. 3 Culpability – Only contracts ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their actions as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it. Negate: COVID vaccines were created under a IPR regime where the government rewarded their innovation with a patent. Post facto removal of the patent without pharmaceutical permission breaks a contract | 9/5/21 |
Delineate Spikes TheoryTournament: NSD Camp | Round: 1 | Opponent: Daniel Nam | Judge: Zachary Siegel | 7/8/21 |
Must Disclose SpikesTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Syosset AH | Judge: Ishan Rereddy Violation: Standards: 1 Neg strat – spikes change neg strat cuz they operate on the highest layer – if they read all the substance first, neg prep is screwed cuz my substantive strat would be nullified by your theory arguments i.e. no neg fiat would take out a CP I was planning to read for 5min 2 Substantive education – spikes on top means it’s easier for negs to plan a strategy that meets the spikes to ensure that debaters have better substantive debate. Outweighs: a) timeframe – we only have 2 months for each topic but 4 years for theory, b) it develops advocacy skills by learning more about real world policies. 3 No cross application of spikes and this shell outweighs – this indicts their ability to use spikes since they affected my strategy in the first place and any 1ar cross apps prove abuse Fairness is a voter—debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation and ow other voters on irriversibilty. Education is a voter, it’s the benefit to debate. Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation has shifted—also the shell indicts your whole aff—justifies severance which skews my strat. Use competing interps—leads to a race to the top since we figure out the best possible norm and avoids judge intervention since there’s a clear briteline. No RVIs— Baiting—they’ll just bait theory and prep it out—justifies infinite abuse and results in a chilling effect | 9/5/21 |
Set col v1Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Julian Kuffour AND p. 36). Settler colonialism and its decolonization implicates and unsettles everyone. The case is NOT offense – their scenarios for “extinction” are metaphorical invocations that sustain settler futurity – only the alternative can prevent them and other ongoing extinctions AND relations, worlds and peoples that are targeted by these discourses and practices. This requires you adopt an ethic of incommensurability in making comparisons and evaluating argumentative burdens AND one. Decolonization is not an “and”. It is an elsewhere. FW: Eval the 1AC as a scholarly artifact – the affirmative should have to defend their epistemic orientation prior to evaluating a risk of fiated solvency. a. Anti-Naitve Education DA Fiat is illusory and voting for them doesn’t do anything – but voting negative can reshape the scholastic practices within this activity – that outweighs because repeated practices presented in speech activities give way to parasitic spaces only challenging the underlying epistemology that shapes that is able to disrupt those settler psyches and mitigate the violence in an anti-settler activity. That Comes first: A 1 chance that debate does shape subject formation outweighs a risk that it doesn’t – because its not worth risking genocide. B Accessibility structures procedural fairness - if we win a link argument it proves why the space that they forward is not only violent but also inaccessible for native folx. AND in an activity and environment hostile to those debate bodies marked by difference. B. Isopolitics DA – Fiat is a form of colonial roleplaying whereby debaters can play the colonizer pretending to legislate on this land which all necessarily presumes an ethicality behind land ownershop and western law. Negation of this authority destabilizes this organizing logic of settler Political selfhood which is an independent reason you should vote negative. This means that we have impact turned their end point of their education offense because rather the constructing advocates who push towards a decolonial ethics, the skills they create, cultivate settlers who think they are more creative without giving out the land. C. our interp is fair predictable and reciprocal – the affirmative has had infinite prep time and chose how to construct the 1AC – their investments into certain rhetorical and epistemic choices like disease, extinction, liberalistic, fiat and death representations are all things integral to 1AC construction that they should be able to defend why they did what they did. | 9/5/21 |
SkepTournament: NSD Camp | Round: 1 | Opponent: Daniel Nam | Judge: Zachary Siegel | 7/8/21 |
T fwkTournament: NSD Camp | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eli Leadham | Judge: Taj Robinson | 7/8/21 |
mRNA PICTournament: UK | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strath Haven LP | Judge: Saketh Kotapati AND such clinical data will contribute to accelerated approval of the vaccines in LMICs. AND , Moderna’s candidate is much more expensive at approximately £25 per dose. AND or contribute with the fill-and-finish stage of the process.” | 9/11/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/4/21 | avikgarg103@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | avikgarg103@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | avikgarg103@gmailcom |
| |
7/8/21 | avikgarg103@gmailcom |
| |
7/8/21 | avikgarg103@gmailcom |
|