| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Howe | 1 | Orange Lutheran AZ | Gabriela Gonzalez |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | Octas | Samammish LW | Panel |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 5 | Brookfield DJ | Bahrani, Neda |
|
|
| |
| the olympics | 1 | myself | mental gymnastics |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Jack Howe | 1 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Gabriela Gonzalez 1AC - Vaccines |
| Jack Howe | Octas | Opponent: Samammish LW | Judge: Panel 1AC - Vaccines V3 |
| Jack Howe | 5 | Opponent: Brookfield DJ | Judge: Bahrani, Neda 1AC - Vaccines V2 |
| 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--VaccinesTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 1 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Gabriela Gonzalez | 9/19/21 |
SO--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 | 9/20/21 |
SO--1AC--Vaccines--V3Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: Octas | Opponent: Samammish LW | Judge: Panel Pandemics Global health inequality threatens progress in fight vs COVID-19 encouraging vaccine resistant mutations IP protections are the vital internal link to reduce vaccine inequality. Empirics disprove all pro patent arguments We’re facing an imminent vaccine shortage now – only by establishing strong infrastructure can we prevent the next pandemic COVID and future pandemics create massive instability – this escalates and risks nuclear war – multitude of warrants. If COVID doesn’t kill us all, numerous factors guarantee the next pandemic will – preparing now is key to prevent extinction. Solvency Thus, the plan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should reduce intellectual property protections of medicines during pandemics. Removing IP protections will increase production, diversify supply, and spur innovations that protect against future pandemics Status quo medical innovation results in inequality, which the aff corrects. Traditional patent law and IPP legitimize biopiracy’s control over dominated subjects, turning them into capital. We get rid of that and step in the right direction Framing The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing Only pain and pleasure are intrinsically good or bad – everything else collapses. Extinction is a unique ontological phenomenon that outweighs under every ethical theory. 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 outweighs. Actor specificity – side constraints make action impossible because government policies always require trade-offs and involve the actions of multiple agents with conflicting moral obligations—the way to resolve those conflicts is by benefiting everyone. Different agents have different ethical obligations – even if they win a theory of personal moral imperatives its fundamentally different then the states obligations. 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. That means that voting neg despite foreseeing the consequences of the affirmative is intrinsically bad. Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check back. 1AR theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance. No RVI or 2N theory because you have 6 minutes to go for them whereas I only have a 3 minute 2AR to respond so I get crushed on time skew. | 9/20/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/19/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
9/20/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
9/20/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
|