King Tripathi Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | Finals | probably you | none |
|
| ||
| None | Finals | probably you | none |
|
| ||
| Yale | 2 | Dulles TY | Maher, TJ |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | none | none |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Maher, TJ 1AC Freedom |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Accessible FormattingTournament: None | Round: Finals | Opponent: probably you | Judge: none | 9/18/21 |
Contact InfoTournament: None | Round: Finals | Opponent: probably you | Judge: none | 9/17/21 |
FreedomTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Maher, TJ 1ACFrameworkEthics must be a priori:1~ Regress: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Metaethical standards outweigh: they determine what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations.2~ Is-ought gap – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.3~ Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisibleThat justifies universalizability. Two warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. Therefore err aff on risk of offense since anything else means ethics cannot serve it's purpose.2~ Any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.Siyar 99 Jamsheed Aiam Siyar: Kant's Conception of Practical Reason. Tufts University, 1999: Thus the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:1~ Performativity- All arguments by definition appeal to reason; otherwise you are conceding they have no warrant to structure them and are by definition baseless. Thus reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~B~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~C~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands. ~D~ destroy ethics since you only know for certain an action is correct is after you take it which makes it too late to correct a wrongdoing. Also, we'd1 always be culpable for things outside of the will due to infinite external factors which would infinitely condemn agents.3~ Frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.4~ Means-based ethics are key to ethical decision-making – other frameworks fail.Anderson: Anderson, Kerby. ~National Director of Probe Ministries International~ "Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number." Probe, 2004. Strake Jesuit JX 5~ Freedom is a property of agency, not a consequence. Adding two circles doesn't make anything more circular than it was before, just like two humans aren't freer than one human.Offense1~ 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 The categorical imperative rejects the idea of intellectual property as it suppresses freedom by preventing others from innovating and suppressing speech in the name of a copyright.Pievatolo 10 Pievatolo, Maria. "Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?" Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP AdvocacyThus, the advocacy – The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. CP and PICs affirm because they do not disprove my general thesis and check the doc for a list for spec. CX checks all theory interps otherwise grant me an auto I meet.Underview1. Presumption and permissibility affirm a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Aarush you'll believe that unless proven otherwise b) we couldn't function or do anything in a world where everything was presumed false. c) Otherwise we'd have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. d) If anything is permissible, then definitionally so is the aff since there is nothing that prevents us from doing it.2~ 1AR theory is legitimate – Otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive, and I can't check back against it. Aff theory comes before neg K and substance, because it indicts their method, and you reward their abuse because I don't have time to win both theory and other areas of debate. A~ 1AR theory is DTD because my 4 minute 1AR is too short to win both theory and other layers. They must also be punished to deter future abuse. B~ No RVI on 1AR theory, they get a 6-3 time skew. Evaluate theory debate after 1AR to solve the 2-1 skew, and ensure we both get 1 speech for theory, key to reciprocity. C~ No 2NR theory, otherwise I have 3 minutes to deal with six minutes of theory. No 2NR arguments, means we have 7-7 rebuttal time. D~ Competing-interps on aff theory because it is key to set good norms and reasonability is arbitrary because they get to set their own brightline.3~ Ks must have topical links, to clarify their links must justify that democracies ought not implement cv –a) reciprocity- the aff only defends the resolution and critiquing something other than the topical rez is not reciprocal since I cant critique anything about your method in the 1ar b) logic – it doesn't negate otherwise; if I say "you ought to go to the doctor" declaring "you ought to eat ice cream" does not sufficiently negate the former. Even mutual exclusive alternative actions just demonstrate there are a nearly infinite number of things we could do instead but does not deny the validity of the AC statement, so K alts don't functionally negate even with their framing mechanism. Evaluate the debate after the 1AC - k2 check infinite abuse since otherwise the 1N will always crush me because of the 7-4 skew.5~ the role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – Constitutivism: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity B~anything else moots 6 minutes of the AC and exacerbates the fact that they get a reactivity advantage since I should be able to compensate by choosing – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it. I assert the resolution as valid and confirmed.7~ neg a priori's affirm – denying the assumptions of a statement proves it valid – the aff is a set of conditionals since the offense being true relies on the framework b) denying this proves it's validity since it's a condition in of itself which means answers proves the conclusion that I should get the ballot. The word resolved in rez means it has already passed- means you can vote aff because the aff is done8~ The neg may not read theory against theory arguments in the AC since a) this moots AC offense because they can read theory on my theory arguments in the aff which ensures that I won't be able to leverage any theory offense in the 1AR from the AC, giving them a huge time advantage, b) it leads to contradictions since the neg can just read theory against this arg, but this indicts those shells, so there's no way to determine which comes first. But, prefer this shell because the neg has the ability to adapt in the NC and it comes lexically prior. | 9/18/21 |
Yale noteTournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: none | Judge: none | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | tripaarush@gmailcom |
|