Lake Highland Seela Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Finals | Dingus | Dingi |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Westwood AP | Sam Anderson |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Southlake Carroll SD | Patrick Fox |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Los Altos BF | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Lexington AK | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Harker SS | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Scarsdale DH | Jim Gray |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Iowa City NW | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | Lexington AR | Sesh Joe |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Strake Jesuit EP | Nelson Okunlola |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Ardrey Kell SA | Annie Wang |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Milton AT | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Lincoln JR | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Charlotte Latin AP | Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Princeton ML | Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All | Finals | Opponent: Dingus | Judge: Dingi 1AC - why u looking at RR on contact info |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Westwood AP | Judge: Sam Anderson 1AC - Agonism |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Patrick Fox 1AC - Agonism |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Los Altos BF | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1AC - Agonism |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC - Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Harker SS | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Jim Gray 1AC - Lay |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Iowa City NW | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 1AC - Kant |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Sesh Joe 1AC - Data Exclusivity |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Nelson Okunlola 1AC - Semiocap |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell SA | Judge: Annie Wang 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu 1AC - Kant |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: Finals | Opponent: Dingus | Judge: Dingi Ways to contact me: | 9/17/21 |
ND21 - AC - AgonismTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood AP | Judge: Sam Anderson Minneapple R2 1AC v Westwood AP1ACFramingThe resolution is a question of what states ought to do so actor specificity is a side constraint on the framework debate.The state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible, Mouffe 2k(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) Even if that’s not always true it’s specifically true in the context of this resolution—it’s a question of what is the just way for distinct states ought to channel disputes.Next, if the state require exclusion, the goal of politics should not be to overcome the us/them distinction. Instead, we should reorient the us/them distinction towards agonism instead of antagonism – this means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy. This constructs a polity despite the us/them distinction. Mouffe 10 bracketed for glang:*Bracketed for Gendered Language* Chantal Mouffe, political theorist, 7-25-2010, "Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics," Pavilion ~#15, http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ AND which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives. Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc –A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard additionally–1~ K solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.2~ Rules cannot determine their own application: we reason within a framework of language and norms, but how to apply each of those norms in to a new situation is radically indeterminate. For example, there is nothing inherent in an arrow that shows a direction. Only agonism accounts for the diversity of interpretations of our norms. Democratic citizenship has diverse forms, none of which can be privileged a priori. If agents have different perspectives, there is no way to formulate a correct understanding – we need to accommodate different practices.3~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place so participating in debate concedes it4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.ContentionPlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse | 11/5/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Patrick Fox Minneapple R4 1AC v Southlake Carroll1ACFramingThe resolution is a question of what states ought to do so actor specificity is a side constraint on the framework debate – that o/w the resolution questions what an ideal state ought to doThe state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible, Mouffe 2k(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) Even if that’s not always true it’s specifically true in the context of this resolution—it’s a question of what is the just way for distinct states ought to channel disputes.Next, if the state require exclusion, the goal of politics should not be to overcome the us/them distinction. Instead, we should reorient the us/them distinction towards agonism instead of antagonism – this means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy. This constructs a polity despite the us/them distinction. Mouffe 10 bracketed for glang:*Bracketed for Gendered Language* Chantal Mouffe, political theorist, 7-25-2010, "Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics," Pavilion ~#15, http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ AND which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives. Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc –A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard additionally–1~ K solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.2~ Rules cannot determine their own application: we reason within a framework of language and norms, but how to apply each of those norms in to a new situation is radically indeterminate. For example, there is nothing inherent in an arrow that shows a direction. Only agonism accounts for the diversity of interpretations of our norms. Democratic citizenship has diverse forms, none of which can be privileged a priori. If agents have different perspectives, there is no way to formulate a correct understanding – we need to accommodate different practices.3~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place so participating in debate concedes it4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.ContentionPlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.MethodForms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse | 11/6/21 |
SO21 - AC - Data ExclusivityTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Sesh Joe Bronx R2FWK====Pain and pleasure are intrinsically valuable – to justify beyond that runs into moral incoherence. Moen 16,==== AND places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being (Act Util). Prefer additionally.~1~ It’s a lexical pre-requisite. Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis, and if people are dead they can’t actualize any ethical theory.~2~ Actor specificity~A~ governments must aggregate because their policies benefit some and harm others so the only non-arbitrary way to prioritize is by helping the most amount of people~B~ Actor specificity comes first because different agents have different obligations. Takes out calc indicts because they’re empirically denied.~3~ Degrees of wrongness – only consequences can explain why some actions are better or worse than others – breaking a promise to take someone to lunch isn’t as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital but only the consequences of breaking it can explain why, so all ethical theories collapse to util and other ethical theories are irresolvable/unweighable.~4~ No intent-foresight distinction—if we foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of our deliberation which makes it intrinsic to our action since we intend it to happen.~5~ Topic lit – most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re crafted for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Fairness bc you vote for better debater not better cheater. Education because that is the terminal impact of debate. These are framework warrants, not a reason to drop the debater.Plan====Plan Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate data exclusivity intellectual property protections for medicines through TRIPs – Diependaele 17 ==== AND pharmaceutical industry, rather than allowing them to have a legitimate demand fulfilled. It’s topical and the aff solves – Data Exclusivity is a TRIPs Plus IP protection – Thrasher 21Thrasher, Rachel. "How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:" Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data-exclusivity-laws-impact-drug-prices/. LHP AB AND it does not require exclusivity rules that block the registration of generic products. Data Exclusivity is uniquely bad when compared to patents, especially in developing countries, in the context of monopolies, WHO 17"Data Exclusivity and Other ‘Trips-plus’ Measures." UHC Technical Brief, WHO, 2017, apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1140151/retrieve. LHP AB AND do not have to grant or enforce patents for pharmaceuticals until 2033.b OffenseAdvantage – Medicine AccessTRIPs Plus Provisions, namely data exclusivity, are being used in many bilateral trade agreements – Thrasher et al 21Thrasher, Rachel, Veronika J. Wirtz, Warren Kaplan, Kevin P. Gallagher, Hattie Werk. "How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:" Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data AND availability of data, and a lack of uniformity in indicators and methods. ====AND ==== ====Links:==== ====~1~ In depth analysis – data exclusivity raises medicine prices – Palmedo 21==== AND larger pharmaceutical purchases are associated with lower prices (Helbe and Aizawa 2017). Impacts:~1~ They directly push people into povertyHoban 10 Rose Hoban 9-13-2010 "High Cost of Medicine Pushes More People into Poverty" https://www.voanews.com/science-health/high-cost-medicine-pushes-more-people-poverty (spent more than six years as the health reporter for North Carolina Public Radio – WUNC, where she covered health care, state health policy, science and research with a focus on public health issues. She left to start North Carolina Health News after watching many of her professional peers leave or be laid off of their jobs, leaving NC with few people to cover this complicated and important topic. ALSO cites Laurens Niens who is a Health Researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam)Elmer AND reaches a patient, markups are sometimes up to 1,000 percent." ~3~ They force patients to go underground for drugs.Bryant 11 Clifton Bryant 2011 "The Routledge Handbook of Deviant Behaviour" (former professor of sociology at VA Tech)Elmer Recut LHP AB AND medicines increase, the implications for increased crime and deviance become almost limitless. ====Counterfeit drugs kill millions –==== AND case, these counterfeit drugs had been sold through a fraudulent online pharmacy. UVThe role of the ballot should be a critical pedagogy of hope centering around formulating concrete alternatives to existing conditions.Amsler, Sarah S. 2007 "Pedagogy against "dis-utopia": From conscientization to the education of desire." AND the authoritarian imposition of abstract generality that critical theory must aim to transcend. And, forms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change. Dean13"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. Integrating the state is essential to any overarching analysis of oppression.Barma 16 ~May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "‘Imagine a World in Which’: Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19, http://www.naazneenbarma.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695681/using'scenarios'in'political'science'isp'2015.pdf~~ AND analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs. Apocalyptic images challenge dominant power structures to create futures of social justiceJessica Hurley 17, Assistant Professor in the Humanities at the University of Chicago, "Impossible Futures: Fictions of Risk in the Longue Durée", Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article/89/4/761/132823/Impossible-Futures-Fictions-of-Risk-in-the-Longue Stuff I didn’t read is BelowIf contemporary ecocriticism has a shared premise about environmental risk it is that genre is the key to both perceiving and, possibly, correcting ecological crisis. Frederick Buell’s 2003 From Apocalypse to Way of Life: Environmental Crisis in the American Century has established one of the most central oppositions of this paradigm. As his title suggests, Buell tells the story of a discourse that began in the apocalyptic mode in the 1960s and 70s, when discussions of "the immanent end of nature" most commonly took the form of "prophecy, revelation, climax, and extermination" before turning away from apocalypse when the prophesied ends failed to arrive (112, 78). Buell offers his suggestion for the appropriate literary mode for life lived within a crisis that is both unceasing and inescapable: new voices, "if wise enough….will abandon apocalypse for a sadder realism that looks closely at social and environmental changes in process and recognizes crisis as a place where people dwell" (202-3). In a world of threat, Buell demands a realism that might help us see risks more clearly and aid our survival.¶ Buell’s argument has become a broadly held view in contemporary risk theory and ecocriticism, overlapping fields in the social sciences and humanities that address the foundational question of second modernity: "how do you live when you are at such risk?" (Woodward 2009, 205).1 Such an assertion, however, assumes both that realism is a neutral descriptive practice and that apocalypse is not something that is happening now in places that we might not see, or cannot hear. This essay argues for the continuing importance of apocalyptic narrative forms in representations of environmental risk to disrupt conservative realisms that maintain the status quo. Taking the ecological disaster of nuclear waste as my case study, I examine two fictional treatments of nuclear waste dumps that create different temporal structures within which the colonial history of the United States plays out. The first, a set of Department of Energy documents that use statistical modeling and fictional description to predict a set of realistic futures for the site of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico (1991), creates a present that is fully knowable and a future that is fully predictable. Such an approach, I suggest, perpetuates the state logics of implausibility that have long undergirded settler colonialism in the United States. In contrast, Leslie Marmon Silko’s contemporaneous novel Almanac of the Dead (1991) uses its apocalyptic form to deconstruct the claims to verisimilitude that undergird state realism, transforming nuclear waste into a prophecy of the end of the United States rather than a means for imagining its continuation. In Almanac of the Dead, the presence of nuclear waste introjects a deep-time perspective into contemporary America, transforming the present into a speculative space where environmental catastrophe produces not only unevenly distributed damage but also revolutionary forms of social justice that insist on a truth that probability modeling cannot contain: that the future will be unimaginably different from the present, while the present, too, might yet be utterly different from the real that we think we know.¶ Nuclear waste is rarely treated in ecocriticism or risk theory, for several reasons: it is too manmade to be ecological; its catastrophes are ongoing, intentionally produced situations rather than sudden disasters; and it does not support the narrative that subtends ecocritical accounts of risk perception in which the nuclear threat gives rise to an awareness of other kinds of threat before reaching the end of its relevance at the end of the Cold War.2 In what follows, I argue that the failure of nuclear waste to fit into the critical frames created by ecocriticism and risk theory to date offers an opportunity to expand those frames and overcome some of their limitations, especially the impulse towards a paranoid, totalizing realism that Peter van Wyck (2005) has described as central to ecocriticism in the risk society. Nuclear waste has durational forms that dwarf the human. It therefore dwells less in the economy of risk as it is currently conceptualized and more in the blown-out realm of deep time. Inhabiting the temporal scale that has recently been christened the Anthropocene, the geological era defined by the impact of human activities on the world’s geology and climate, nuclear waste unsettles any attempt at realist description, unveiling the limits of human imagination at every turn.3 By analyzing risk society through a heuristic of nuclear waste, this essay offers a critique of nuclear colonialism and environmental racism. At the same time, it shows how the apocalyptic mode in deep time allows narratives of environmental harm and danger to move beyond the paranoid logic of risk. In the world of deep time, all that might come to pass will come to pass, sooner or later. The endless maybes of risk become certainties. The impossibilities of our own deaths and the deaths of everything else will come. But so too will other impossibilities: talking macaws and alien visitors; the end of the colonial occupation of North America, perhaps, or a sudden human determination to let the world live. The end of capitalism may yet become more thinkable than the end of the world. Just wait long enough. Stranger things will happen.¶ Youth participatory action research enables transformative resistance and is crucial to make activism workCammarota and Fine 08 AND means by which young people engage transformational resistance. (1-4) | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - AC - KantTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell SA | Judge: Annie Wang 1AC Yale R2 vs. Ardrey Kell SA1acFrameworkOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal outer freedom.Prefer –First, transcendental idealism – there’s a distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world – freedom, as noumenal and undetermined by natural laws, is the supreme principle of ethics, Korsgaard 96:Korsgaard, Christine. "Creating The Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations." (p. 317-318). July 28, 1996 Recut LHP AV AND it is better regarded as something we say not about but to her. Second, ontology – being a human is constituted by rational reflection to answer the normative question – this is abstraction that is consistent with our identity, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND fallen short of its original aim of being a viable account of morality. Humanity is the fundamental identity – this grounds a system of equal and outer freedom, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND It is our humanity that requires us to value humanity, nothing else. Third, performativity – an intrinsic feature to any action is the acceptance of the goodness of universal freedom, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Underview1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls. It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC Yale R3 vs. Milton AT1acFrameworkOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal outer freedom.Prefer –First, transcendental idealism – there’s a distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world – freedom, as noumenal and undetermined by natural laws, is the supreme principle of ethics, Korsgaard 96:Korsgaard, Christine. "Creating The Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations." (p. 317-318). July 28, 1996 Recut LHP AV AND it is better regarded as something we say not about but to her. Second, ontology – being a human is constituted by rational reflection to answer the normative question – this is abstraction that is consistent with our identity, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND fallen short of its original aim of being a viable account of morality. Humanity is the fundamental identity – this grounds a system of equal and outer freedom, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND It is our humanity that requires us to value humanity, nothing else. Third, performativity – an intrinsic feature to any action is the acceptance of the goodness of universal freedom, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Underview1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls. It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Yale – R6 ACTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ~8~ Interpretation – the negative must only defend the resolution – to clarify, counterplans are bad, prefer:~1~ limits – predictability – engagement – fairnessROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it’s the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v4Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Triples | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera Yale – Trips – 1AC v Charlotte Latin APFramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.MethodAny resistance to systemic injustice must be based on a comprehensive normative theory which determines what the best response to specific injustices are – 4 warrants – Laurence,Laurence, Ben. "The Priority of Ideal Theory." PDF File. LHPYA AND about practical reasoning, which all depend on ideal theory for their systematic character ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v5Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu Yale – Dubs – 1AC v Princeton ML*spikes on bottom lol*FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. No skep, no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.3~ Collapses – A~ any framing presupposes a motivation to vote one way or another which means all framings concede the validity of normativity B~ Ethics comes prior to logical truth, Peirce 02:CS Peirce, "CP 2.198" 1902, https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf LHP AV AND it; but my labors will have done good work toward its improvement. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps E~ Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive game that requires objective evaluation – every argument asumes the ability to be evaluated fairly2~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND nihilistic theory, TN. And again suppose that I must decide between sending 3) Even if there are no moral rules, that doesn’t mean we don’t know characteristics of what morality would have to be. So the term morality does not lack content. A) Coming to the conclusion there are no morals doesn’t prevent you from making deductions about what a moral system should be. For example, we could say any moral system must be internally motivating. That can be true even if no moral system satisfies that requirement as the deduction of those features do not assume a true moral system could meet those requirements. It is proven by the fact that in every debate case, there is a meta-ethical framework that deduces an ethical framework.The meta-ethic shows the features of what a moral system ought to be, to allow us to then deduce the moral system. Even if we can’t make the second deduction, we can still make the first. B) The truth of skepticism would prove that we can understand the feature of morality. The way to produce skepticism is to say a true moral system must X, Y, Z and no moral system can meet those features. | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v6Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC Valley R1 v Lexington AKTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it’s the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v7Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker SS | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC R4 Valley v Harker SSTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it’s the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. Liars paradox is true – consider the sentence "this sentence is false" – if the statement is false then it is true but it would be contradictory for it to be true given that it would prove falsityI Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined and I’m determined. a priori’s 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates.Since there are infinite worlds, the aff is logical in one which is sufficient.Vaidman 2 Vaidman, Lev, 3-24-2002, "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," No Publication, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ AND and it explains why a world appears to be indeterministic for human observers. If I win one layer, vote aff a) they have 7 minutes to uplayer and nullify my offense b) forces engagement with the aff since they have to defend all arguments which means they read better ones. | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v8Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Iowa City NW | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuseFramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. No skep, no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.3~ Collapses – A~ any framing presupposes a motivation to vote one way or another which means all framings concede the validity of normativity B~ Ethics comes prior to logical truth, Peirce 02:CS Peirce, "CP 2.198" 1902, https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf LHP AV AND it; but my labors will have done good work toward its improvement. | 10/15/21 |
SO21 - AC - LayTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Jim Gray DefinitionsI affirm the resolution resolved: The Member Nations of The World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.Because the resolution involves international trade law, a notoriously complex topic, I would like to start this debate by offering the following definitions:First, as financial analyst and writer Evan Tarver in 2021 explains:Tarver, Evan. "How Best to Define the World Trade Organization (WTO)." Investopedia, Investopedia, 15 June 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp. LHP PS AND joined in July 2016, and 25 "observer" countries and governments. Second, intellectual property for medicine is explained best by Oxfam America as: "Intellectual Property and Access to Medicine." Oxfam, www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-well-being/intellectual-property-and-access-to-medicine/. AND D. At the same time, the public benefits from technological advancement. Finally, The term "ought" in the resolution implies a moral obligation. Therefore, my value is morality.My value criterion is maximizing societal well being. Prefer this for the following reasons:~1~ People give up some of their rights to the government in return for protection from that government. That’s called the social contract. Because the people agree to follow the law, the government is obligated to protect them.~2~ Real governments have an obligation to base their policy decisions on what will help the greatest number of people, as philosopher Robert Goodin explainsROBERT GOODIN1Consider, first, the argument from necgooessity. Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices – public and private alike – are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, are relatively poorly informed as to what effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use utilitarian calculus – if they want to use it fat all – to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule. ~3~ Social welfare is a prerequisite for any other rights. If people are suffering, then freedom is meaningless.Accordingly, my thesis is that reducing intellectual property for medicines is essential to societal well-being.Contention 1: AccessibilityIn the status quo, innocent people are dying to diseases that can be easily prevented. However, these diseases continue to kill due to the lack of access to medicines and vaccines.Subpoint a) RotavirusA prominent example of this is the rotavirus in Africa, as journalists Carmen Garcia and Philip Whiteside in 2019 explainGarcia, Carmen, and Philip Whiteside . "Why 7,000 People Die Needlessly Every Day." Sky News, 2019, news.sky.com/story/why-7-000-people-die-needlessly-every-day-11770982~#. LHP PS AND of preventing up to a third of all diarrhoea across the developing world. Subpoint B) COVID VaccineIPR is preventing the distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine to low and middle income countries as Eccleston-Turner and Rourke in 2021 explain ~Mark, Lecturer of Global Health Law, Keele University, Michelle, CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Fellow, Griffith University, Australia, American Society of International Law, "The TRIPS Waiver is Necessary, but it Alone is not Enough to Solve Equitable Access to COVID-19 Vaccines" 25(9) May 27, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/25/issue/9 AND and techniques (know-how) are protected informally as trade secrets. Subpoint C) Reducing intellectual Property SolvesBillions of people lack access to these medicines that could prevent millions of deaths. High levels of IP protections like the status quo continue to make accessibility even harder as Oxfam America explains"Intellectual Property and Access to Medicine." Oxfam, www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-well-being/intellectual-property-and-access-to-medicine/. AND such high levels of IP protection are extremely damaging to public health outcomes.
| 9/26/21 |
SO21 - Theory - ACCTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - Theory - Must Have Delineated Advocacy TextTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/5/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
10/15/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
10/17/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
|