| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
| ||
| Loyola | 1 | Silver Creek KZ | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Catonsville AT | Navarrete, Javier |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Harvard-Westlake NL | Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Lexington JB | Waldman, Ben |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Silver Creek KZ | Judge: Joey Georges 1AC- human rights plan |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Navarrete, Javier 1AC Stock |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake NL | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC stock |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Waldman, Ben 1AC- Petite |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Accessible FormattingTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
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: - | 9/4/21 |
0 - DisclosureTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
0 - Potential InterpsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - 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 - Theory - CSATournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Navarrete, Javier 1A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than " The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines” then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy.B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Fairness –a) Ground –b) Limits –2. Research – | 9/15/21 |
1 - Theory - Implementation BadTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Silver Creek KZ | Judge: Joey Georges A. Interpretation: The aff may not defend implementation.Ought statements entail an ideal without an action or imperative.Robinson 71 Richard Robinson, "Ought and Ought Not," Philosophy, Vol. 46, No. 177 (Jul., 1971), pp. 193-202 Massa B. Violation: They do.C. Standards:1. Precision –2. Limits and Ground –3. Resolvability –D. Voters:Fairness is a voter –Drop the debater –No RVIs – Use competing interps | 9/14/21 |
1 - Theory - Must Read ROBTournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake NL | Judge: Tom, Neville 2A. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech.B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Strat Skew –2. Reciprocity – | 9/15/21 |
2 - K - WomxnTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Silver Creek KZ | Judge: Joey Georges Their use of the term women instead of womxn reinforces hierarchies.Caira Blignaut, OPINION: Womxn vs Women, March 24, 2018, https://www.matiemedia.org/opinion-womxn-vs-women/ /AHS PB Drop them to deter further sexist rhetoric in the debate space- they could have said womxn instead.The safety of the space is prima facie – we don't know who's winning if people can't engage. Anything that doesn't immediately denounce atrocities excludes people who have and can experience them.Teehan Ryan Teehan ~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. Massa | 9/14/21 |
2 - K - DependencyTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Navarrete, Javier Their discourse of "dependency" stems from repressive rhetoricNANCY FRASER AND LINDA GORDON, American critical theorist, feminist, and the Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Political and Social Science and professor of philosophy at The New School in New York City. AND professor of history and a University Professor of the Humanities at New York University , "Dependency" Demystified: Inscriptions of Power in a Keyword of the Welfare State, published 1994, /AHS PB Drop them to deter oppressive rhetoric in the debate space- they didn't need include discourse of "dependency" to win case – they also could have used terms like "mutually reliant" to imply that all within the case are equals.The safety of the space is prima facie – we don't know who's winning if people can't engage. Anything that doesn't immediately denounce atrocities excludes people who have and can experience them.Teehan Ryan Teehan ~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. Massa | 9/15/21 |
2 - NC - SkeppyTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Silver Creek KZ | Judge: Joey Georges Presumption and permissibility negates -Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa But justice, however unpresentable it may be, doesn't wait.· It is that which must not wait. To be direct, simple and brief, let us say this: a just decision is always required immediately, "right away." It cannot furnish itself with infinite information and the unlimited knowledge of conditions, rules or hypothetical imperatives that could justify it. And even if it did have all that at its disposal, even if it did give itself the time, all the time and all the necessary facts about the matter, the moment of decision, as such, always remains a finite moment of urgency and precipitation, since it must not be the consequence or the effect of this theoretical or historical knowledge, of this reflection or this deliberation, since it always marks the interruption of the juridico- or ethico- or politico-cognitive deliberation that precedes it, that must precede it. The instant of decision is a madness, says Kierkegaard. This is particularly true of the instant of the just decision that must rend time and defy dialectics. It is a madness. Even if time and prudence, the patience of knowledge and the mastery of conditions were hypothetically unlimited, the decision would be structurally finite, however late it came, decision of urgency and precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule Affirming negates.Paraphrasing Mcnamara '06, Paul, 2-7-2006, "Deontic Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," No Publication, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/index.html~~#4.3 Massa Premise 1—Premise 2—Thus, premise 3—External world skep is true.Neta, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa | 9/14/21 |
2 - ROB - Truth TestingTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Silver Creek KZ | Judge: Joey Georges 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 –– e) Permissibility trigger –f) Constitutivism –– g) Inescapability – | 9/14/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/14/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
| |
9/15/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
| |
9/15/21 | luckychanpark@gmailcom |
|