King Tripathi Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | Finals | probably you | none |
|
| ||
| None | Finals | probably you | none |
|
| ||
| Yale | 1 | Montville RP | Scopa, Stephen |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 1AC Stock |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 Accessible FormattingTournament: None | Round: Finals | Opponent: probably you | Judge: none | 9/18/21 |
1 Contact infoTournament: None | Round: Finals | Opponent: probably you | Judge: none | 9/18/21 |
Colt PythonTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 1Interpretation: If the aff reads a standard, they must explicitly specify 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:1. Clarify how offense links back to the standard, 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 standard is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement.Violation:Standards:1. Engagement – I can't engage in their standard because I don't know what type of offence would negate under it or how to weigh between them. Answers their claim about me reading a different standard bc that just means that there's is exclusionary which means you should be epistemically suspect of their standard.2. Strategy Skew – They can always just change the way their standard functions in the 1AR so that any try to negate under their standard would be completely removed which always ensures that they will win. | 9/18/21 |
LibertarianismTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 3Permissibility and presumption negate – a. the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation via ought, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation b. Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.The starting point of morality is practical reason. 2 warrants: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.That justifies universalizability. 3 warrants:1~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. Therefore err neg on risk of offense since anything else means ethics cannot serve it's purpose.2~ Any non-universal norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.3~ A violation of freedom is a contradiction and can never be universalized.Stephen Engstrom 08 (PhD, Professor of Ethics at University of Pittsburg). "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge". Pg. 19-20 Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of universal freedom.Offence1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut SJKS recut JX 2~ The aff violates the categorical imperative and is non-universalizable- governments have a binding obligation to protect creationsVan Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS 3~ Unauthorized publication and usage of text is wrongful and infringes on inalienable moral rightsBarron '11. ~Barron, Anne (2011) Kant, copyright and communicative freedom. Law and philosophy . pp. 1-48. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37521/1/Kant_Copyright_and_Communicative_Freedom_28lsero29.pdf~~ NChu | 9/18/21 |
Spikes on topTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 2A. Interpretation: all arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the AC. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments.B. Violation you don't read your spikes at the top of your caseC. Standards -1. Neg strat – theory spikes and interpretations drastically change neg strategy because they operate on the highest layer of the debate. If the aff reads all their substance and then theory, it's super unfair for the neg because time spent developing a substantive strategy becomes immediately nullified by your theory spikes. The neg should have to know what they have to meet before planning a strategy.2. Substantive education – if theory spikes are laid out at the top of the aff, the neg is able to then plan a strategy that meets your spikes so debaters can have a clean substance debate instead of spike extensions. Outweighs: a) substance means we learn about real-world policies which is better for advocacy skills and b) we only have 2 months for each topic while we get theoretical education every other round. And, you can't use your spikes to take out my shell – a) it indicts my ability to have responded to their spikes so you have to evaluate the shell first and b) my shell doesn't indict their ability to read their spikes rather it indicts the placement of the arguments so I do not trigger the violation. | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | tripaarush@gmailcom |
|