| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| Loyola | 2 | Southlake Carroll PK | Sreyaash Das |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 4 | Marlborough JH | Hooks, Alyssa |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 6 | Sam Barlow EL | Ahuja, Ronak |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Sreyaash Das 1AC - Freedom |
| Loyola | 4 | Opponent: Marlborough JH | Judge: Hooks, Alyssa 1ACK |
| Loyola | 6 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak 1AC K |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Accessible FormattingTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
0 - CitesTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/15/21 |
0 - Contact InfoTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
0 - DisclosureTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
0 - Protentional InterpsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - Disclosure Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2021-22 NDCA LD Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Paragraph Theory PICs are a voting issue. Condo PICS are a voting issue. Floating PIKs are a voting issue. Dispo is a voting issue. Alt actor fiat is a voting issue. Multiple shells with DTD implications are a voting issue. Multiple NIBs is a voting issue. Consult CPs are a voting issue. Counterplans competing only through net benefits are a voting issue. Delay CPs are a voting issue. TJFs are a voting issue. Agent CPs are a voting issue. Not speccing status is a voting issue. Spec shells are a voting issue. Vague alts are a voting issue. Misc Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty and extinction outweighs. Interpretation: Debaters may not read extinction first under any framework. Interpretation: The neg may not derive a route to the ballot premised on the flaws of the aff framework. To clarify, framework Ks are bad. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: Counterplans must not be conditional. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the 1NC must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend at more than one conditional advocacy. Interpretation: If the negative proscribes a proactive change to the status quo, they must defend a governmental action. Interpretation: Negative debaters may only defend the status quo as an advocacy if the aff is whole res. Interpretation: All negative advocacies must be unconditional. Interpretation: If the negative reads a dispositional counterplan, they must defend that they go for it if I straight turn it. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read an advocacy that defends the affirmative’s advocacy absent a particular part or parts. To clarify PICs bad. Interpretation: Negative counterplans must be functionally and textually competitive. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do part of the affirmative advocacy if the affirmative defends the entirety of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not advocate the entirety of the affirmative with the exception of one word. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do all of the aff advocacy except for a word or phrase unconditionally. Interpretation: The negative must not read an advocacy that can result in the world of the affirmative. To clarify, floating PIKs bad. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read a counterplan that only competes through net benefits. To clarify, advantage counterplans are bad. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a counterplan, the agent of the counterplan must be the same agent as the AC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a CP then they must have a carded solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the CP. Interpretation: If the negative reads a plan inclusive counterplan, then the neg must have a solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the explicit counterplan text. Interpretation: If the negative justifies competing interpretations, they must specify whether it operates under a norms-creation or an in-round abuse model. Default to norms-creation since the violation proves that your practice is bad in the context of a norm. Interpretation: All neg counterplans need to be a) disclosed if they have been read before and b) need to be currently implemented somewhere in the status quo. Interpretation: The negative must disclose text of PICs 30 minutes prior to the round on their own NSDA LD Wiki if the affirmative is whole res and disclosed. Interpretation: The negative must defend a unique ethical framework from the aff. To clarify you cannot straight ref. Interpretation: The negative debater must either only contest the aff framework or the aff offense functioning under their framework. Interpretation: the negative must have a counter-advocacy text in the NC. Interpretation: The negative debater must defend the converse of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not defend a counterplan that fiats an alternative actor that is distinct from the aff. Interpretation: Debaters must not read an alternative that only specifies that we must reject the aff in favor of a critical shift. Interpretation: Kritik alternatives must only be specific, solvent policy actions implemented by a single actor. The alt must have a solvency advocate that explains the implementation of the policy, and cannot fiat a rejection or mindset shift. Interpretation: The neg must only have topical K links. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolution through state or location action. They must defend either federal legislation, an executive order, or a reversal of current decisions through the Supreme Court. Interpretation: The negative debater may not read more than one theory shell in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a “pre-fiat kritik”, then the link cannot be derive from something in the resolution. Interp solves any abuse: They can still read their criticism but they have to impact it back to a substantive framework. That could be minimizing oppression, but it can’t have pre fiat implications. Interpretation: The negative may only link offense to the post-fiat advocacy of the aff. To clarify, no Reps K’s. Interpretation: The neg must gain offense only from at most one unconditional route to the ballot. To clarify, a route to the ballot is one independent layer of the debate that functions as a voting issue. Interpretation: The negative must defend a counter-advocacy with a solvency advocate from the topic literature and a text written down in the 1NC. Interpretation: Kritiks must have an alternative. Interpretation: All kritik alternatives must have an explicitly delineated text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads both theory and a kritik, they must explicitly say which layer outweighs in an explicit text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a K, they must not read multiple links into the K. Interpretation: The negative may only read theory shells that indict the aff for an advocacy shift after the shift has occurred. To clarify you may not read a shell indicting a potential advocacy shift. Interpretation: If debaters read theory and a K and don’t explicitly weigh between them in the speech they were read or in CX, they must grant me an RVI. Interpretation: Debaters may not read multiple theory and/or T shells with an implication of drop the debater and no RVI’s. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming/negating is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the negative reads a negating is harder arguments, they must specify the implication they have in a delineated text of the speech they read them. Interpretation: If the negative reads negating is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose identity specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the identity of the debater. Interpretation: The neg must specify the status of all advocacies in the form of a delineated text in 1NC during the 1NC immediately after reading the advocacy text. To clarify, you must say if advocacies are condo, uncondo, or dispo in the 1NC. Note: I reserve the right to read shells contextual to the round in order to check for abuse if I feel as though the violation is particularly egregious. | 9/15/21 |
1 - Spec StatusTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Sreyaash Das | 9/10/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - FreedomTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Sreyaash Das FramingThe meta-ethic is procedural moral realism.This entails that moral facts stem from procedures while substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –Next is regress -That justifies universalizability –Thus, the standard is Consistency with the Categorical Imperative. Prefer:~1~ Performativity –~2~ Humanity –~3~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must theoretically justified. Prefer our standard –~4~ Frameworks all share equal value.~5~The neg may not read consequentialism –OffenseI affirm: Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms1~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals' abilities to pursue their own endsLong 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM 2~ IPR is nonuniversalizable and interferes with the freedom of people who need medicineMerges 11 ~(Robert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law) "Justifying Intellectual Property," Harvard University Press, 2011~ JL recut Lex VM The neg must concede the aff contention level arguments -Underview~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and I can't check back. It's DTD, competing interps, and highest layer bc the 1AR is too short to win both theory and substance. No 2NR theory or paradigm issues cuz they can dump on it for 6 minutes and my 3-minute 2AR is screwed.~2~ Use a truth testing paradigm a) Logic –– b) Fiat is illusory –– c) ROBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense– d) Inclusion~3~ Practices are assumed to exist for the purposes of discussion. However, denying the assumptions behind statements just proves them valid. The only time the statement is invalid is when the consequent is false.Stanford https://web.stanford.edu/~~bobonich/dictionary/dictionary.html Abbreviated Dictionary of Philosophical Terminology An introduction to philosophy Stanford University ACCS JM Implications-Reject uncarded responses –~4~ Util justifies death good –~5~ RVI on NC theory –~6~ Reject neg fairness concerns~7~ All neg interps are counter interps | 9/10/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/10/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
| |
9/15/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
| |
9/15/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
|