AC-Stock NC-TT Kant NC AC 1AR-TT Bad AC NC 2NR-1AR Shell NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Apple Valley
3
Opponent: San Mateo AS | Judge: Lila Lavender
AC-Deleuze NC-Berardi AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Apple Valley
6
Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield
AC-Agonism NC-Contracts Linguistic A prioris Bad AC 1AR-2 Shells NC Shell Contracts 2NR-Contracts 1AR Shells NC Shell 2AR-AFC NC Shell
Apple Valley
Triples
Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo, Rafael Li, Saianurag Karavadi
AC-Climate Strikes NC-Kant NC T-A Extinction First Bad AC 1AR-T-A Extinction First Bad AC NC 2NR-Extinction First Bad 2AR-Extinction First Bad
Badgerland
4
Opponent: Valley JS My favorite Joe | Judge: Ian Matsuzeski
AC-Rawls NC-Kant NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-RVI NC AC 2AR-RVI AC NC
Badgerland
1
Opponent: Neenah IH | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis
AC-Deontology NC-Contracts NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Badgerland
6
Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Chaitra Pirisingula
AC-idek NC-TT Kant NC v2 Colt Peacemaker AC 1AR-AC TT NC Colt Peacemaker 2NR-NC TT AC 2AR-AC NC TT
Blake
6
Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Jack McKyton
AC-Affect NC-Extra T Bad TT Skep NC AC 1AR-AC T TT Skep 2NR-Extra T Bad 2AR-Extra T Bad
Blake
3
Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis
AC-Virtue Ethics NC-Libertarianism Must Spec what a "trick" is can't say cps don't negate AC 1AR-Theory NC AC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-NC
Contact Info
Finals
Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Kyle Kopf
Contact Info
Contact Info
Finals
Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Kyle Kopf
Contact Info
Dowling
2
Opponent: Lincoln East BH | Judge: Isabella Nadel
AC-Butler NC-Kant NC AC 1AR-Spreading K AC NC 2NR-NC AC Spreading K 2AR-AC Spreading K
Dowling
3
Opponent: Rosemount JA | Judge: Krishna Agrawal
AC-Structural Violence NC-TT Kant NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Dowling
5
Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Breigh Plat
AC-Larp NC-Kant NC Extinction First Bad Util On Top AC 1AR-AC NC Extinction First Bad 2NR-Util on Top Extinction First Bad 2AR-Extinction First Bad Util on Top
Dowling
Quarters
Opponent: Samammish LW | Judge: Danny Flores, Breigh Plat, Scott Krueger
AC-Empire NC-TT Kant NC T-Government AC 1AR-T AC TT NC 2NR-T-Government 2AR-T-Government
Glenbrooks
2
Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Jeong-Wang Choi
AC-Larp NC-Kant NC AC 1AR-AFC AC NC 2NR-AFC NC AC 2AR-NC
Glenbrooks
3
Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Jack Quisenberry
AC-Larp NC-Kant NC Extinction First Bad AC 1AR-Extinction First Bad AC NC 2NR-Extinction First Bad 2AR-Extinction First Bad
Glenbrooks
5
Opponent: Durham RL | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
AC-Larp NC-Kant NC v3 Extinction First Bad Must Disclose Changes to Advocacy 1AR-Kant NC Shells 2NR-Disclosure Kant NC 2AR-Shells Kant NC
Harvard
1
Opponent: Plano East AM | Judge: Sreyaash Das
AC-Mega Constellations NC-Libertarianism NC Util on Top T-Appropriation AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-Util on Top T-Appropriation NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Harvard
3
Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Angela Zhong
AC-Cap NC-TT Libertarianism NC Must Include URL Method Offense Bad ROTB on Top AC 1AR-AC NC Must Include URL Method Offense Bad ROTB on Top Must Delineate Interps 2NR-1AR Shell Method Offense Bad Must Include URL 2AR-Must Include URL Method Offense Bad
AC-Adorno NC-TT Libertarianism NC TResolved Method Offense Bad Impact Justified Frameworks Bad May Not Deny Negative Theory AC 1AR-All 2NR-Method Offense Bad Impact Justified Frameworks Bad 2AR-AC Shells
Lexington
2
Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Javier Hernandez
AC-Larp NC-Nietzsche AC 1AR-AC K 2NR-K AC 2AR-AC K
Lexington
3
Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Muhammad Khattak
AC-SetCol NC- ROTB Normative Frameworks Libertarianism NC v2 May Not Defend Implementation May Not Read ROTJ and ROTB 1AR-AC ROTB NC 2NR-Shells 2AR-AC
Lexington
6
Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: Keshav Dandu
AC-Kant NC-Essentialism AC 1AR-Must Have URL AC NC 2NR-NC AC 1AR Shell 2AR-Shell
Mid America Cup
1
Opponent: West Des Moines Valley LS | Judge: Breigh Plat
AC-Locke AC NC-Gauthier NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
Mid America Cup
3
Opponent: AHS JW | Judge: Manasi Singh
AC-K Aff NC-TT Gauthier NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-AC 2AR-AC
Mid America Cup
5
Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Anthony Cui
AC-Larp NC-Guathier NC Extinction First Bad AC 1AR-Shell AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
New York City Invitational
1
Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis
AC-Kant NC-Contracts NC AC 1AR-Neg Must Have Advocacy Text AC NC 2NR-1AR Shell AC 2AR-AC
New York City Invitational
3
Opponent: Harrison AA | Judge: Elise Matton
AC-Women's Health NC-TT Kant NC AC 1AR-AC NC 2NR-NC AC 2AR-AC NC
New York City Invitational
6
Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Joseph Georges
AC-Larp with Tricks NC-Kant NC AC 1AR-AFC AC NC 2NR-AFC AC NC 2AR-AC NC
TOC
1
Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson
ACTranspacific Reimagining NCTT Libertarianism NC Must Include URL Method Offense Bad AC 1ARAC TT Libertarianism NC Must Include URL Method Offense Bad AC 2NRMethod Offense Bad Must Include URl 2ARAC Must Include URL Method Offense Bad
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0--Contact
Tournament: Contact Info | Round: Finals | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Kyle Kopf Hi, I'm Nate Email: nawei23@icstudents.org Instagram: @_nate_2020 319-855-2661 Pinterest: @nathanweimar I'll most likely respond to email.
1/16/22
JF--Essentialism NC
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: Keshav Dandu Cites are broken, see OS.
1/16/22
JF--Libertarianism NC
Tournament: Blake | Round: 3 | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Cites are broken, see OS.
12/27/21
JF--Libertarianism NC v2
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Muhammad Khattak Cites are broken, see OS.
1/15/22
JF--Skep NC
Tournament: Blake | Round: 6 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Jack McKyton Cites are broken, see OS.
12/20/21
JF--T--Appropriation
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Plano East AM | Judge: Sreyaash Das Interpretation: The affirmative must only garner offense from proving permanently claiming a part of space is bad, e.g. appropriating a planet, star etc. Violation: Their plan and offense is about satellites, which don’t permanently claim a part of space since they move around and aren’t in the same spot for more than milliseconds. Appropriation means: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/appropriation The action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission. Thus, satellites aren’t appropriation because they don’t take a part of space. Prefer for logic, sending a boat into the ocean isn’t appropriating the ocean because you’re not claiming property rights to the ocean. Satellites rotate around the earth, which means you’re not claiming property rights to any particular part of space.
Standards:
Limits: When “this thing uses space” counts as a topical aff it explodes the number and type of potential affs. You can garner offense from things like private entities shouldn’t use rockets, shouldn’t send up weather balloons, shouldn’t launch telescopes, etc. Which is an impossible prep burden on the negative because it means there are literally infinite different variety of topic literature I have to be prepared on. 2. Precision: When you can just start defending stuff that kind of has to do with space, that artificially inflates aff ground because you can just cherry pick trivially true policy proposals and skirt out of core neg disads.
2/19/22
JF--T--Resolved
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 5 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Quinn Hughes Interpretation: The affirmative must defend the implementation of the resolution via the enactment of a hypothetical policy action.
Resolved means a policy action. Louisiana State Legislature. "Legislative Glossary." Louisiana State Legislature, www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx. Accessed 29 Jan. 2022. Resolution A legislative instrument ... 13.5 and 15.1)
Ground: The resolution is a policy action asking whether the government should prevent private entities from appropriating outer space. This is core to most neg ground, i.e. phil NCs about coercion, disads about state interference in the private sector, etc. The aff just magically fiats that private corporations stay out of space, which kills neg ground because the neg is limited to only arguments that prove companies should proactively appropriate space.
2/20/22
K--Ableism
Tournament: TOC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Sam Anderson Cites are broken, see OS.
4/23/22
K--Berardi
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo AS | Judge: Lila Lavender cites are broken, see OS.
11/6/21
K--Nietzsche
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 2 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Javier Hernandez Cites are broken, see OS.
1/15/22
ND--Gauthier NC
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield Cites are broken, see OS.
11/6/21
ND--Kant NC
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Marlborough SG | Judge: Joshua You cites are broken, see OS.
11/6/21
ND--Kant NC v2
Tournament: Badgerland | Round: 6 | Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Chaitra Pirisingula Cites are broken, see OS.
11/14/21
ND--T-A
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo, Rafael Li, Saianurag Karavadi Cites are broken, see OS.
11/6/21
ND--T--Government
Tournament: Dowling | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Samammish LW | Judge: Danny Flores, Breigh Plat, Scott Krueger Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that the government of a state ought to recognize a right to strike. To clarify you can use a hypothetical “just state” you just must use some sort of state to implement the aff and not community organizations. Violation: They do. Government is defined as the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government Standards:
Limits: There are infinite possible Infinite Abuse:
Topic Education:
(I extempted the standards and voters cuz I didn't have time to write the shell before round)
12/12/21
ROTB--Normative Frameworks
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Muhammad Khattak Cites are broken, see OS.
1/15/22
ROTB--TT
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: AHS JW | Judge: Manasi Singh The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the affirmative must prove it true and the negative must prove it false. Prefer: A) Text: Five dictionaries define negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution’s truth or falsity. Constitutivism outweighs because you don’t have the jurisdiction not to truth test. Jurisdiction is a meta constraint since every argument you make concedes the authority of the judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary B) Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is true that I am awake” which means they are also a question of truth claims because it’s inherent. C) Ground: Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for education because me engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn’t help anyone. D) Truth Testing is a prerequisite to other role of the ballots because without truth we’re operating off of lies which is what fuels propaganda and oppression.
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley LS | Judge: Breigh Plat Presumption Negates
We presume things false, this is why people don’t believe things like conspiracy theories. 2. There are an infinite number of ways to prove something false and only one way to prove it true. 3. The neg burden is to deny the evidence of truth so if there’s no offense as to why the resolution is true the neg has fulfilled their burden. Permissibility Negates
The aff must prove an obligation because ought indicates a moral obligation. If an action is permissible, definitionally, no obligation is present and you negate.
The metaethic is fictionalism. The view that external moral doctrines are arbitrary, and non binding. This means ethics must be internally created by specific individuals depending on their individual circumstances. Prefer:
We must internalize and care about external claims, which means external motivation collapses. Joyce 1, Richard (Professor of Philosophy at Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand). The Myth of Morality. 2001. Bracketed for grammatical clarity ICW NW Back to the ...an internal one.3
Contracts solve this because people agree to certain constraints to better promote their self interest. People agree to channel their desires and in doing so, establish a set of moral agreements. Gauthier 86 Gauthier, David P. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print. ICW NW Moral principles are...in their affairs.
Thus, the standard is consistency with the contractarian principle of mutual restraint, this is when people agree to constrain their actions for their own self interest. To clarify, obligations arise from restraints we place on ourselves by entering contracts. Prefer:
Bindingness: Contracts are binding since there are legal repercussions to not following them. This outweighs because if people don’t have any reason to follow ethics they can just not follow it the second they don’t want to and it loses all meaning. 2. Them contesting my framework concedes it’s validity since contracts were fundamental to any of their cards. For example, your authors needed publishing licenses, and your empirical studies needed permits. Impact Calc: My framework only cares about whether or not the resolution is consistent with or inconsistent with actual contracts. The aff must prove a contract binds states to remove patent protections, anything less than that doesn’t prove the resolution obligatory.
Contention 1) Patents are contracts, between companies and the government in which the government gives companies protections and exclusive rights to a thing and in return companies make that thing. This is an instance of mutual restraint and as a result it’s immoral to violate patents.
Contention 2) The TRIPS agreement, which is a binding contract agreed to by members of the world trade organization, grants intellectual property rights to medicines. Supakankunti, Siripen, et al. "Impact of the World Trade Organization TRIPS Agreement on the Pharmaceutical Industry in Thailand." World Health Organization Bulletin, 2001, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566431/pdf/11417042.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept. 2021. ICW NW In 1947, a ...processes and products.
9/25/21
SO--Kant NC
Tournament: New York City Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison AA | Judge: Elise Matton Presumption Negates
We presume things false, this is why people don’t believe things like conspiracy theories. 2. There are an infinite number of ways to prove something false and only one way to prove it true. 3. The neg burden is to deny the evidence of truth so if there’s no offense as to why the resolution is true the neg has fulfilled their burden. Permissibility Negates
The aff must prove an obligation because ought indicates a moral obligation. If an action is permissible, definitionally, no obligation is present and you negate.
The standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. This is the idea that maxims must be universalizable without contradiction.
The meta ethics is practical reason, the ability to set and pursue ends, because practical reason is inescapable, since its constitutive of action and escaping practical reason is an action. This means practical reason is the most binding and determines morality.
Practical reason shows us morality must respect the equality of individuals. All individuals are agents with practical reason. Even if people have different capacities for setting and pursuing ends, practical reason is still binding since every agent has some sort of action, even if this just means thinking etc. Because all people are agents it means there can’t be any morally relevant distinction between people. History: Things like racism are objectively bad, because traits of someone's identity don’t affect how ethical someone is. This means when you say something is obligatory you’re saying all practical reasoners have that obligation because you can’t arbitrarily exclude someone from ethics. Additionally, a) It doesn’t make sense to say something’s a rule for you but not others, I.e. 2+2=4 to me but not other people. b) Anything else means ethics is non binding since if certain people are in certain positions they don't have to follow rules, you can just put yourself in those positions whenever you don’t want to follow rules. c) Identification of an obligation for oneself comes from our understanding that I as an agent have certain obligations, this means we must recognize this obligation for other agents too. And, things can’t be both true and false. Gahringer, Robert. “Moral law.” Ethics, Vol. 63, No. 4, July 1953, pp. 300-304. (N8)
“Within any deductive system the basic principle of criticism is self-consistency. To show a deductive system inconsistent is to disqualify it. If it is asked why be consistent, it will be answered that it is a basic condition of having a system. And if we ask why this, it will be answered that Without this a system would not be an intelligible unity in any other way. The demand for consistency rests ultimately on intelligibility; it is a condition of intelligibility. Consistency may appear as a principle of the bare absence of contradiction, and this may be only a matter of the independence of elements. But consistency may go much deeper. If someone suggests that we dispose of the principles of consistency, we can ask the consistency of such a suggestion. If the principle of consistency is the condition of intelligibility, the denial of it (which must be an intelligible denial) denies in principle what it assumes: it is transcendentally inconsistent. The proposal to abandon the principle of consistency (the law of noncontradiction) cannot be made within any system, since every system presupposes it; and it cannot be made outside, since every proposal assumes it. This is, of course, a material consideration belonging to logic in the larger sense.”
Thus our actions must be able to be universalized because all people are equal, and still be possible when universalized since an action can’t be possible and not possible, I.e. an action must still be possible to take when everyone takes that action.
This is a side constraint: even if you prove some other ethical theory is good, it can’t provide obligations that lead to contradictions because it can’t say everyone is obligated to do something and not do something.
Prefer additionally:
Regress: Any framework allows you to infinitely ask why, only my framework stops the regress because once you get to the point of practical reason, questioning it doesn’t make sense, since to question practical reason concedes its validity. 2. Performativity: We need freedom to make any arguments in debate, this means answers to my framework prove it true because you exercise your practical reason to try and contest it.
Contention 1) Intellectual property is equivalent to actual property, and violations of it are coercive. Mossoff, Adam. "Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification." Library of law and liberty (2015). https://lawliberty.org/forum/why-intellectual-property-rights-a-lockean-justification/ One of the...invasion of property.”39 This impacts back to my framework because in order to violate someone else's freedom you have to have freedom. However, if everyone violates everyone’s freedom no one has freedom to take the action of coercion. Thus, coercion isn’t universalizable without contradiction and is immoral.
Contention 2) Taking back patents after companies developed drugs in return for them, is an instance of promise breaking. Vaccine patents aren’t the problem and waiving them would be disastrous. Miron, Jeffrey. "Waiving Covid-19 Vaccine Patents Would Be Disastrous." Market Watch, 19 May 2021, www.marketwatch.com/story/waiving-covid-19-vaccine-patents-would-be-disastrous-11621430167. Accessed 21 Sept. 2021. In a widely...see another day. This impacts back to my framework because a) government’s used companies as a means to their end of getting the vaccine and b) breaking promises isn’t universalizable without contradiction, since to break promises they have to have standing but if everyone just broke promises they wouldn’t exist anymore to break since a promise implies trust. Contention 3) Copying other people’s formulas isn’t universalizable without contradiction. The resolution is a question of whether or not people should be allowed to replicate medicines that other people came up with and created. This isn’t universalizable without contradiction since if everyone just copied some other person there would be no original and copying would be impossible.
10/16/21
Theory--Colt Peacemaker
Tournament: Badgerland | Round: 6 | Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Chaitra Pirisingula A. Interpretation: If the aff differs from the conventional truth testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:
Clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and which comes first. 2. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, such as whether or not the aff comes before theory. 3. Clarify how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement. B. Violation: Multiple ways the AC violates:
You never explicitly specify what counts as offense on the ROB. 2. You never clarify any interactions with theory. 3. You never specify how we weigh in the AC. C. Standards:
Engagement – If I don’t know how the role of the ballot functions, its impossible for me to engage the aff, since knowing what counts as offense for me is a prerequisite to being able to make meaningful arguments that clash with yours. Knowing what a legitimate advocacy is ensures that I read something that is relevant to your method, and knowing how to weigh gives us an explicit standard for what is relevant, preventing superficial clash where we each make vacuous preclusion claims. This is uniquely true of role of the ballots since there is no communal norm on what “preformative engagement” is in the same way there is for what counts as util offense. Few impacts: a) Education – when two ships pass in the night we don’t learn anything, education is derived from analyzing and comparing each other’s arguments, so this theory argument is specifically legitimate. b) Resolvability – if there is no engagement determining which arguments come first is impossible so the judge can’t resolve the round. This comes first- judge needs to be able to resolve who is winning under your role of the ballot, so even if that precludes theory in general, resolving the round is a gateway issue. c) Link turns your role of the ballot – your impacts are premised on actually having a debate and engaging with issues of oppression. A one-way street doesn’t give us any benefits you didn’t get form writing your case at home. Further, difficult to engage roles of the ballot are uniquely bad since no one will take seriously a position that can’t be clashed with, so you harm any progress your position can create.
Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a game and without fairness you’re voting for the better cheater not the better debater. Drop the debater to deter future abuse, b) if I prove abuse it means substance has already been skewed. c) dta incentivizes abuse because it takes longer to check abuse than to commit it. Competing interps because a) reasonability has broad and bidirectional brightlines that allow you to just keep shifting them to justify any abuse. b) competing interps sets the best norms because you have to justify your actual practice, so bad practices will lose. C) infinite abuse: d) it collapses. No RVIs a) an RVI would mean any time theory is introduced the entire debate comes down to it which kills substance eduation and all strategy because in a world where there’s an RVI the debate would just be is this theory shell true mooting everything else. b) you don’t win for just being fair or educational. c) it encourages good theory debaters to be abusive so they can bait theory and win off the rvi. d) It means the aff can just sit on one shell for four minutes, and auto win every round.
11/14/21
Theory--Evidence Ethics
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 5 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Quinn Hughes Interpretation: Debaters must provide proper citations for their evidence. Violations: The poems both don’t have citations or author credits. The Berardi Card is just a name and doesn’t have a source. The Shammas card legit just has a URL. Standards: Evidence Ethics:
2/20/22
Theory--Extinction First Bad
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Anthony Cui Interpretation: Debaters may not claim extinction comes first under any framework. Violation: Standards:
Strat Skew: This structurally skews the framework debate because you can win either util is true or that extinction comes first but I have to beat back both and win my framework. This is uniquely abusive because I could beat every warrant for util and destroy your framework and still lose the framework debate. 2. Phil Ed: Extinction first doesn’t require you to normatively justify or understand your framework, it just requires you to read an extinction impact. Instead of having nuanced clash on the framework debate, every round comes down to the lbl on Pummer ‘15. Voters: Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a game and without fairness you’re voting for the better cheater not the better debater. Drop the debater to deter future abuse, and because if I prove abuse it means substance has already been skewed. Competing interps because a) reasonability has broad and bidirectional brightlines that allow you to just keep shifting them to justify any abuse. b) competing interps sets the best norms because you have to justify your actual practice, so bad practices will lose. No RVIs a) an RVI would mean any time theory is introduced the entire debate comes down to it which kills substance eduation and all strategy because in a world where there’s an RVI the debate would just be is this theory shell true mooting everything else. b) you don’t win for just being fair or educational.
9/26/21
Theory--Extra Topicality Bad
Tournament: Blake | Round: 6 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Jack McKyton Interpretation: The affirmative must garner offense solely from the implementation of the resolution. To clarify, you may not garner offense from a methodology that goes further than just the text of the resolution. To further clarify, extra topicality bad. Violation: Their advocacy says they defend the resolution and then a bunch of other stuff about how they garner offense from _.
Standards:
Predictability: There are infinite branches of literature and methodologies you could defend. You get to cherry pick your specific aff and frontline it for months while I come into the round with no way of having prep against it. 2. Ground: You get to pick any method you want, which a) artificially inflates aff solvency and offense because you can tailor your methodology to your role of the ballot and b) kills negative ground because you shifted the stasis point of the debate. Even if I get to read disads to the resolution you can just leverage your method or delink because you defend more than just the resolution. 3. Infinite Abuse: Garnering offense from things that aren’t solely the resolution allows you to pick trivially true methodologies and auto win every time. I.e. you can say “I defend racism is bad, and that the resolution is true” which gives you methodological offense that I can never contest. Drop the debater:
No RVIs:
Competing Interps:
Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a game, and without fairness you’re voting for the better cheater not the better debater.
12/20/21
Theory--Impact Justified Frameworks Bad
Tournament: Harvard | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Kenji Aoki, Arjon Hever, Jenn Melin I extempted the shell so its not in the doc. The interp was something like Interpretation: Impact justified frameworks are bad. Standards: Strat Skew: You can identify literally any impact that's bad, uniquelly abusive because you can just cherrypick an objectively bad impact which kills negative strategy.
2/21/22
Theory--May Not Defend Implementation
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Muhammad Khattak Cites are broken, see OS.
1/15/22
Theory--May Not Deny Negative Theory
Tournament: Harvard | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Kenji Aoki, Arjon Hever, Jenn Melin I extempted the shell so its not in the doc. The interp was something like Interpretation: The affirmative may not deny the negative theory. Standards: Infinite abuse, it means you can do literally anything you want, i.e. clip cards, commite evidence ethics violations etc. and the negative doesn't get any recourse. Uniquely abusive even if I can contest it because you can just blip like 10 reasons in the underview to significantly hinder my ability to check abuse.
2/21/22
Theory--May Not Read ROTJ and ROTB
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Muhammad Khattak Cites are broken, see OS.
1/15/22
Theory--Method Offense Bad
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Angela Zhong Interpretation: The affirmative must garner offense only from private appropriation of outer space being unjust. To clarify you may not garner offense from method offense. Violation: They fiat luxury communism happens in outer space as part of the aff. Standards: Limits: When you get to tack on other actions after private appropriation being bad it allows literally infinite affs. I.e. you can say “stop
appropriating space AND insert anything”. This kills neg prep because there are literally infinite affs. Especially true since you can just cherrypick the best method to tack on afterwards which I already won’t be able to predict.
2/19/22
Theory--Must Disclose Changes to Advocacy
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Durham RL | Judge: Phoenix Pittman I extempted the standards but the interp and violation were. Interpretation: If the affirmative tells the negative what aff they will read they must disclose changes to the plan text if asked. Violation: they told me the only changes would be to the framework but also changed the plan text. Screenshots in the doc.
11/21/21
Theory--Must Include URL
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Angela Zhong Interpretation: Debaters must include a url to the source of their evidence in the citation of their cards. Violation: Most of the cards in the aff don’t have a url. Standards:
Evidence Ethics: a) Providing a source is a key part of a citation. I.e. you have to give credit to the original author and prove where you got it from. b) When there’s no url we can’t check if its misrepresented, you could literally just write whatever you want and we have no way of verifying it. They clearly have some online source because its carded word for word, which means you had to copy paste from somewhere.
Evidence Ethics o/w: a) It has real world portable implications, i.e. if you misrepresent things you get kicked out of school. b) It outweighs on magnitude since it’s communally accepted that evidence ethics violations are bad c) Outweighs on intent to commit abuse. There is no net benefit to not citing evidence properly.
2. Clash: I should be able to access the source you’re reading from, otherwise you get to read the whole article and I only get to read the part that may or may not be from the original source.
2/19/22
Theory--ROTB on Top
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Angela Zhong It was extempted but the shell was something like: Interpretation: The affirmative must read their role of the ballot first in the AC. To clarify role of the ballot on top. Violation: They didn't. Standard: Strat Skew: My engagement with the method is contingent on what the framing is which means you should read the role of the ballot first so I can think about how to respond to the aff method while you're reading the AC.
2/19/22
Theory--Util on Top
Tournament: Dowling | Round: 5 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Breigh Plat Interpretation: The affirmative must read their framework arguments before everything else in the AC. To clarify, util on top. Violation: They didn't. Standards: Strat Skew: Negative engagement with the contentions is predicated on what your framework is/how good it is. For example, if you read your advantages and then get to the bottom and read one util warrant I'd want to have a framework debate but if you get to the bottom and read 6 pages of util warrants my strategy would be modified.