Harrison Borman Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NDCA | 3 | Ayaan | Ethan Massa |
|
|
| |
| NDCA | 1 | Iris Ye | Arun Kodumuru |
|
|
| |
| NDCA | 6 | Angela Tang | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| The Superbowl | Quads | Tom Bradey | Retirement |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| NDCA | 3 | Opponent: Ayaan | Judge: Ethan Massa AC- Cut Corners |
| NDCA | 1 | Opponent: Iris Ye | Judge: Arun Kodumuru Debris CP |
| NDCA | 6 | Opponent: Angela Tang | Judge: Devin Hernandez AC- Mining and Exploitation |
| The Superbowl | Quads | Opponent: Tom Bradey | Judge: Retirement "Sorry I was late to the round I was dealing with some fools before this" - Charles |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 - Contact InformationTournament: The Superbowl | Round: Quads | Opponent: Tom Bradey | Judge: Retirement In the words of Bon Jovi, " I want to live my life alive" which is why I'm here to give you my contact info. My name is Jabo (Jah-Bow) and send all docs to harrison.debate.team@gmail.com. "I love everybody, including myself," said Ye, and that's why I'm in this activity. Now I'm going to end this message off with a word from my favorite song, "Dream" Everything is Awsome, The Lego Movie | 4/9/22 |
2 JF- CP and OWNERSHIPTournament: NDCA | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ayaan | Judge: Ethan Massa Framework Value I negate and value Justice, meaning policies that respect people’s due. All of the standard objections to the idea of equal freedom conceive of freedom as a person’s ability to achieve his or her purposes unhindered by others. This understanding of freedom, described as “negative liberty” in Isaiah Berlin’s essay “Two Concepts of Liberty,” characterizes any intentional actions or regulations that prevent a person from achieving his or her purposes as hindrances to freedom. Some critics have questioned the special significance of the actions of others in limiting freedom on this account – lack of resources, or internal obstacles may frustrate your purposes just as much as my deliberate actions. The difficulty for the idea of equal freedom is different. It comes from the role of successful attainment of your purposes in this conception of freedom. If our purposes come into conflict, so too must our freedom. Any purpose, whether my private purpose of crossing your yard, or that state’s public purpose of coordinating traffic flow, can come in to conflict with some person’s ability to get what he or she wants. The closest such a conception of freedom can come to an idea of equal freedom is some distributive system that would be likely to equalize people’s chances of success.23 The sovereignty principle conceives of freedom differently, in terms of the mutual independence of persons from each other. Such freedom cannot be defined, let alone secured, if it depends on the particular purposes that different people happen to have, because part of the reason freedom is important is that it allows each person to decide what purposes to pursue. Instead, equal freedom is understood as each person’s ability to set and pursue his or her own purposes, consistent with the freedom of others to do the same. Each person's entitlement to decide how their powers will be used precludes prohibiting many of the setbacks people suffer as effects of other people’s non- dominating conduct. People always exercise their powers in a particular context, but that context is normally the result of other people's exercises of their own freedom. To protect me against the harms that I suffer as you go about your legitimate business, perhaps because you set a bad example for others, or deprive me of their custom, would be inconsistent with your freedom, because it would require you to use your powers in the way that most suited my wishes or vulnerabilities. You do not dominate me if you fail to provide me with a suitable context in which to pursue my favoured purposes. To the contrary, I would dominate you if I could call upon the law to force you to provide me with my preferred context for those purposes. That would just be requiring you to act on my behalf, to advance purposes I had set. That is, it would empower me to use force to turn you into my means. Refusing to provide me with a favourable context to exercise my powers is an exercise of your freedom, not a violation of mine, however mean spirited you may be about that refusal.31 He adds: Criterion My criterion is Protecting a System of Equal Freedom. Protecting a System of Equal Freedom means giving all people the ability to pursue their own ends. In other words, my right to swing my fist ends when it hits someone else’s face. Under this standard, the negative burden is to show that private space appropriation alone does not violate equal freedom. Conversely, the affirmative burden is to show that private space appropriation alone violates equal freedom. Thesis My thesis and sole contention is that since asserting ownership over something does not, by itself, harm others, the process of appropriation can’t be considered unjust. Forty years ago, John Lennon sang, “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can”. The concept of possession itself is interesting to consider, and investigate, and debate (Curchin, 2007). A recent report explained happiness and well-being as agential flourishing (Raibley, 2012). Possession (ownership) and taking action are concepts that contrast with each other, since the former represents stasis or little movement, and the latter is dynamic and movement itself. Thus, we have arrived at a significant question, psychologically and philosophically: Which is more important to achieve happiness, ownership (possession) or taking action? There is little research about the preference for ownership or taking action in relation to happiness. In this paper, we examine the happiness that people feel from possession or ownership in comparison to the happiness they achieve as a result of taking action. The purpose of this paper is to investigate Japanese people’s preference for ownership (possession) or taking action, to evaluate the correlations of this preference with gender, age, level of education, and annual income, and to discuss reasons for people’s preference. They add: On the other hand, there is little research about the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action in relation to happiness. One reason could be the difficulty in differentiating the terms “taking action”, and “experience”. One possible difference between the terms action and experience might be that people valued taking action for its achievement value, in addition to its experiential value (Nozick, 1974) . According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, action is the doing of something and/or state of being in motion or of working, whereas experience is the act of living through an event or events; personal involvement in or observation of events as they occur. These meanings are similar in Japanese. Taking action might have broader meaning beyond its experiential value (i.e., experiencing an event or events), such as work or achievement of value, and/or volunteering and making charitable contributions. Moreover, happiness from taking action is to some extent different from happiness from experience or experiential purchase, in accordance with the distinction between episodic happiness and well-being (Raibley, 2012) , since experience or experiential purchase is related or connected to an episode, an event, or events. We investigated the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action, in relation to hap- piness, considering that the term taking action included the term experience. We think that ownership is not only related to purchasing behavior, but also related to the monopolization of materials, which is close to being selfish. Psychological study of monopolization materials (Why do some people like to monopolize materials instead of freely transferring them to others?) is a very important and useful topic for the psychology of happiness and/or peace. When we look deeply into the question of ownership, we can find very broad and meaningful aspects in ownership, as like as in taking action. We think that taking action and ownership are also comparable in their broad meanings. Then, we carried out the research about the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action in relation to happiness. Nelson and Block And private property appropriation respects a system of equal freedom. In sharp contrast, each and every transaction that occurs under laissezfaire capitalism can boast volunteerism. When A purchases a pen from B for $1, they both agreed to the transaction. It was unanimous. And the same goes for all other commercial interactions, whether buying or selling, trading or bartering, lending or borrowing, or saving and investing. Thus, if property remains in the private sector, there is no violation of any just law as there is with public property. How can property rights be established? From the libertarian perspective, this is accomplished through homesteading. How does this work? The general rule is simple.8 One mixes his labor with the land, by planting a field or harvesting trees; a man captures and domesticates an animal, or kills one for food. Then, he becomes the owner of the resource owners establishes just title. So, if one man grows corn, and another milks a cow, and then they barter, the farmer owns the milk, even though he did not produce it, as does the rancher the corn, ditto. But, both can trace titles to what they now own to initial homesteading and voluntary interaction. The problem with so-called government ownership is that no politician, no bureaucrat, ever homesteaded or freely traded anything.9 Instead, the king, or the congress, simply declared control over certain territories. But this is on a par with everything else done by this institution. There is no justification, merely the fraudulent claim: “Might makes right.” We therefore conclude that private property, the very basis of the free enterprise system, is justified. Commons What of unowned property not controlled by either government or private individuals? The ethical status of the commons depends upon exactly how and why this occurs. The short answer is, if property is unowned because it is sub-marginal, then all is well. If, on the other hand, this status arises because the state refuses to allow private parties to homestead virgin territory and take ownership over it, then this is contrary to the libertarian ethos. The unowned property itself, of course, is not to blame; it is inanimate. The fault lies with the institution that refuses to allow homesteading and settlement on it. Why is some land sub-marginal? This is because it does not pay to settle on it. The terrain is too rough, or too far away from civilization to be economical, or too dangerous, or for any other reason unsuitable for habitation by any but the heartiest and most adventurous persons and even then, only temporarily. Since affirming denies rights without any wrongdoing from private entities, it violates the criterion and justice. Cap-and-Trade CP Trapp 1 Instead of banning private space appropriation OR: affirming, states should set up a cap-and-trade system. This entails: To effectively combat the space debris problem, a cap-and-trade system should be set up that will both be effective and withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. As such, an international regulatory agency should be created to serve two functions: first, the agency should impose an international limit to the addition of debris and should then apportion these allowances to nations based on their current use of space. The total allowable debris addition should be recalculated yearly based on the state of the space environment, and individual allowances should also be recalculated annually to account for changes in the abilities and needs of different nations. Second, the agency should allot specific LEO area orbital trajectories, such as the ITU allots GEO orbital slots.294 Though this will be more difficult than allocating GEO slots, since those slots appear stationary while LEO orbital paths are constantly in motion, it can be done. First, an international electronic database should be produced which tracks the current location of all space objects registered in the Space Object Registry, which should include all spacecraft launched into space. It should also record, to the greatest extent possible, the location and trajectory of any debris. This database should be updated daily to represent the most accurate portrayal of the location and trajectory of space objects by the nations responsible for those space objects. Second, this database should be used to calculate predictions of where spacecraft will be in the future, and LEO orbital slots should be defined both in time and space, as opposed to being defined purely by location. This may seem difficult, but it is actually made quite simple by the use of computers. Though these calculations will become less accurate over longer periods of time, the constant updating of the database will allow these predictions to be constantly updated as well, so that they will be accurate for at least the immediate future. When a nation applies for a trajectory slot, the agency should only allocate that slot if it can be entered into and sustained for a certain amount of time without requiring a trajectory modification of any other spacecraft. With a workable allocation system in place, the agency should be in conformity with the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. To ensure this, it is important that, in allocating slots, both the interests of current space-faring nations, as well as those without the capability to get into space, are provided for. To do so, the agency should only allow actual physical entry into trajectory slots to those who comport with the cap-and-trade regime, while allowing claims to such slots to all nations, on bases similar to those of the ITU.299 This will ensure that this agency will not run into some of the problems that the ITU did when it began.300 In doing this, the agency will be comporting to the ideal that space be preserved for all mankind. Furthermore, since the purpose of the agency would be to mitigate the debris problem, its purpose would be ensuring future access to space. This, in connection to the fact that this is an international agency responding proportionately to an international problem,301 will allow the agency to withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty.302 Competition It’s mutually exclusive – private entities can still appropriate outer space under the CP, but can’t under the aff – makes perms impossible. Trapp 2 WE SOLVE 100 OF THE AFF – the CP follows the Outer Space Treaty’s ban on state appropriation, but doesn’t let private entities pollute. Space debris poses a threat to future open access to the space environment. Without some sort of action, the problem will continue to escalate, putting at risk the sustainability of the space around our planet. An international regulatory authority that operated under the U.N. to institute a cap-and-trade regulation system and to allocate LEO orbital trajectories is the best way to curb the space debris problem while staying within the mandate of the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. The allotment of trajectories would ensure that everyone has fair access to the resource, as well as facilitate the reduction of space debris caused by collision.3 A cap-and-trade system would make sure that the proliferation of further debris is curbed, as well as incentivize actors to contribute to cleaning up the space resource. Since such an agency would operate under the authority of the U.N., it would be of an international character, similar to the ITU. Moreover, since the purpose of the regulation would be to curb the space debris problem, it would fall directly in line with the principle of ensuring continued access to the space resource for all mankind.308 Finally, since the regulation would benefit those nations currently acting in space as well as those who will explore space in the future, without unduly favoring one or the other as some have claimed the ITU allocation procedures have done, it is a proportional response to an international concern. Thus, the suggested system represents the best way to handle the debris problem without effecting a prohibited appropriation of space. Case Duren PRIVATE ENTITIES HELP THE ENVIRONMENT – Carbon Mapper’s nonprofit program will map out emissions to help fight climate change. In a first-of-its-kind coalition to accelerate climate change action, and with help from UArizona researchers, a new nonprofit organization called Carbon Mapper is launching a program to improve scientific understanding of global methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon Mapper, a new nonprofit organization partnering with the University of Arizona, today announced a groundbreaking program to help improve understanding of and accelerate reductions in global methane and carbon dioxide emissions. The Carbon Mapper consortium also announced plans to deploy a satellite constellation to pinpoint, quantify and track methane and carbon dioxide emissions. "This decade represents an all-hands-on-deck moment for humanity to make critical progress in addressing climate change," said Riley Duren, research scientist in the UArizona Office of Research, Innovation and Impact and CEO of Carbon Mapper. "Our mission is to help fill gaps in the emerging global ecosystem of methane and CO2 monitoring systems by delivering data that's timely, actionable and accessible for science-based decision making." Current approaches to measuring methane and carbon dioxide emissions at the scale of individual facilities – particularly intermittent activity – present challenges, especially in terms of transparency, accuracy, scalability and cost. Carbon Mapper – which also is partnering with the state of California, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Planet, Arizona State University, High Tide Foundation and RMI – will help overcome these technological barriers and enable accelerated action by making publicly available high emitting methane and carbon dioxide sources quickly and persistently visible at the facility level. The data collected by the Carbon Mapper constellation of satellites will provide more complete, precise and timely measurement of methane and carbon dioxide source level emissions as well as more than 25 other environmental indicators. Through the Carbon Mapper-UArizona partnership, Duren and other UArizona researchers offer scientific leadership of the methane and carbon dioxide emissions data delivery including developing new algorithms and analytic frameworks for testing them with an ongoing research program. "Time is of the essence when it comes to understanding and mitigating methane and CO2 emissions," said Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation Elizabeth "Betsy" Cantwell. "Partnering with Carbon Mapper will give University of Arizona researchers the tools needed to not only see emissions hot spots, but to understand their causes and develop actionable plans for reducing or eliminating these sources." Carbon Mapper, in collaboration with its public and private partners, is developing the satellite constellation in three phases. The initial study phase, now complete, included two years of preliminary engineering development and manufacturing. The first phase is underway and includes development of the first two satellites by Planet and JPL, scheduled for launch in 2023, accompanying data processing platforms, and ongoing cooperative methane mitigation pilot projects using aircraft in California and other U.S. states. P;’ | 4/10/22 |
3 JF- DEBRIS CP ILAW BADTournament: NDCA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Iris Ye | Judge: Arun Kodumuru | 4/10/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
4/10/22 | jackborman5@gmailcom |
| |
4/10/22 | jackborman5@gmailcom |
| |
4/10/22 | jackborman5@gmailcom |
| |
4/9/22 | jackborman5@gmailcom |
|