| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Howe | 5 | Brookfield DJ | Bahrani, Neda |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 1 | Orange Lutheran AZ | Gabriela Gonzalez |
|
|
| |
| the olympics | 1 | myself | mental gymnastics |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Jack Howe | 5 | Opponent: Brookfield DJ | Judge: Bahrani, Neda 1AC - Vaccines V2 |
| Jack Howe | 1 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Gabriela Gonzalez 1AC - Vaccines |
| the olympics | 1 | Opponent: myself | Judge: mental gymnastics Contact Information |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0--Contact InfoTournament: the olympics | Round: 1 | Opponent: myself | Judge: mental gymnastics Email: hhspolicy@gmail.com I also use Facebook messenger, so you can find me on here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009768186055 Lmk if you have disclosure preferences/requests. | 9/18/21 |
1AC--Vaccines--V2Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: 5 | Opponent: Brookfield DJ | Judge: Bahrani, Neda WTO The aff is the final chance for WTO credibility – the plan creates momentum for reforms, including resuming its role as mediator for US-China trade conflicts and approval of new Appellate Body judges, but only if the WTO is seen as instigating the solution. Only WTO mediation can reset US-China trade relations that kill cooperation now – that requires new Appellate Body judges. China and the US want to work together on climate, but unresolved trade disputes kill cooperation. Only US-China climate cooperation can meaningfully combat global warming – attempts are futile without bilateral communication. The brink is now – climate change causes extinction and turns every other impact. Framing The role of the ballot is to evaluate the relative benefits of the hypothetical implementation of the resolution or a competitive policy option. Its really simple – if the aff materially reduces suffering vote aff Prefer it: First, debate should focus on material solutions to violence – reject ethical theories that ignore material consequences of actions on real people. Second, scenario planning – its good in the context of the resolution – future pandemics will happen and COVID proves we are ill-prepared – means even if they win futurism is bad generically we’ll win its good in the context of the resolution. Third, it hijacks truth testing – truth can only be determined through empirical analysis of a resolutional question – absent discussion of what would happen in implementation we can’t know the moral truth of a statement which makes material implementation a prerequisite. The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing First, evaluating consequences is key to ethics – contingency trumps certainty. Second – only pain and pleasure are intrinsically good or bad – everything else collapses. Third, experience is good – only way to understand ethics because people come to different conclusions but we all experience pain and pleasure as good and bad – it’s the only universalizable morality. Fourth – reject ‘consequentialism fails’ arguments – they ignore empirical reality and devalue violence – i.e. if I put my hand over a hot stove I immediately pull it away not because of any moral truth about my hand being burnt but the simple fact that it hurts – global warming is killing people right now and ignoring it is violent – you should refuse to evaluate their arguments. Fifth – no act-omission distinction – choosing to not act is an act in and of itself – the aff creates a choice between two actions, neither of which is an omission Sixth – no intent-foresight distinction – foreseeable consequences of an action are intrinsic to an action – i.e. if I give an apple to you knowing its rotten then I’m responsible for you getting sick because I knew the consequences would happen and therefore intended them to happen but I didn’t know the apple was rotten them I’m not. That means that voting neg despite foreseeing the consequences of the affirmative is intrinsically bad. Seventh – introspection – the fact that humans have historically disagreed about almost everything proves that no normative truth can be reached besides universal introspective conclusions – i.e. just like I can tell that my computer is purple I can know that my happiness is good and that your happiness is good which proves util. Eighth – only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness – i.e. if I lie to you about liking your hair that is clearly not as bad as lying to you about whether there’s a serial killer behind you. Only consequentialism explains why the first lie is less bad then the second one. Ninth – util is lexically prior – in order for agents to be able to engage in complex moral deliberations they must first be safe and not in danger of death – that means materially reducing violence has to come first. Tenth – actor specificity – side constraints make action impossible because government policies always require trade-offs—the way to resolve those conflicts is by benefiting everyone. Different agents have different ethical obligations – even if they win their theory of personal moral imperatives its fundamentally different then the state. Impact calc – First – extinction first –
2. Reversibility – once we all die that’s it – it eliminates the possibility for future value and forcing everyone on earth to die because the 1ac wasn’t ideologically perfect is horrible and denies agency. 3. Future live - the scale is incomprehensible – you should weigh all the billions of people that would die plus all the future people who are being denied the possibility to live. 4. Cognitive bias – extinction hasn’t happened yet which makes you less likely to view it as a distinct possibility – you should overcorrect. 5. Structural violence – even if not everyone dies war and pandemics create massive violence primarily directed at minorities – that is bad. Second – epistemic modesty – evaluate probability of framework times probability of impact A point its substantively true since it maximizes the probability of achieving net most moral value—beating a framework acts as mitigation to their impacts but the strength of that mitigation is contingent. B point philosophers care about different frameworks – i.e. they recognize intent but also recognize what happens as a result of that intent C point is clash—disincentives debaters from going all in for framework which means we get the ideal balance between topic ed and phil ed—it's important to talk about contention-level offense | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/19/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
|