Lake Highland Seela Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | Harrison JP | Quinn Hughes |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Mahtomedi SS | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | American Heritage Broward SS | Joshua Porter |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | South Eugene Independent KS | Eric He |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Triples | Dulles TY | Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin |
|
|
| |
| All | Finals | Dingus myself | Dingi ayman and yash |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 1 | Minnetonka MW | Fabrice Etienne |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Rosemount CP | Michael Harris |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Doubles | DTHS HV | Aryan Janasi - Fabrice Etienne - Michael Harris |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | Dulles TY | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 5 | Vestavia Hills DS | Nethmin Liyanage |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Midlothian AC | Carlos Carrasco |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Doubles | Ayala AM | James Stuckert - Claudia Ribera - Dylan Sutton |
|
|
| |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 1 | 5 Reha Patel | 2 Jonathan Conway |
|
|
| |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 3 | 6 Lavanya Ravi | 8 Enrique Alberti |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 3 | Lexington AK | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 7 | Nova CD | Jeong-Wan Choi |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Lexington AG | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Aragon ZA | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | Byram Hills EW | Andrea Reier |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | Olympia OE | Faizaan Dossani |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Houston Memorial SC | Daniel Shahab Diaz |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Lexington FV | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Lexington AT | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Strake Jesuit JS | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Princeton AS | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Hunter AH | Nathan Frenkel |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Montville RP | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 1 | Cooper City NR | Amadea Datel |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | Finals | All | All |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 3 | Tays KM | Maximilian Tran |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | Finals | All | All |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 6 | Lexington BF | Jacob Palmer |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 4 | King CP | Delon Fuller |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 2 | Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 4 | American Heritage Broward JW | Luiz Bravim |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 6 | American Heritage Broward SS | Isaiah Salgado |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 1 | Pine View EL | Alex Anania |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Westford AW | Fabrice Etienne |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Harrison EM | Parth Misra |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Strake Jesuit HZ | Alex Rivera |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Lexington VM | Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Devin Jiang |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Quarters | Dulles TY | Rohit Lakshman - Eric Tang - Keshav Dandu |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Quinn Hughes 1AC - Cap |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - Kant |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Joshua Porter 1AC - Baudrillard |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | Opponent: South Eugene Independent KS | Judge: Eric He 1AC - China |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin 1AC - Agonism (actually phil this time!) |
| All | Finals | Opponent: Dingus myself | Judge: Dingi ayman and yash 1AC - why are u looking at RR on contact info |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Minnetonka MW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne 1AC - Structural Violence |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Rosemount CP | Judge: Michael Harris 1AC - Stock |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Aryan Janasi - Fabrice Etienne - Michael Harris 1AC - Berardi (i think idek tbh ask harun) |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC - "Agonism" Tricks Asian Pess |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC - Intuitionism |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 5 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage 1AC - Queerpess |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Opponent: Midlothian AC | Judge: Carlos Carrasco 1AC - Beller |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Doubles | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: James Stuckert - Claudia Ribera - Dylan Sutton 1AC - Lunar Heritage |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 1 | Opponent: 5 Reha Patel | Judge: 2 Jonathan Conway 1AC - Rawls |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 3 | Opponent: 6 Lavanya Ravi | Judge: 8 Enrique Alberti 1AC - Inequality |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC - UK and Ireland with Util Osource Disclosed AFC |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 7 | Opponent: Nova CD | Judge: Jeong-Wan Choi 1AC - Econ |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1AC - Heg |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - China |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Andrea Reier 1AC - Whole Rez |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 1AC - Debris |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Houston Memorial SC | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz 1AC - Non T |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Trade Secrets |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - Pragmatism |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1AC - Pandemics |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Waivers |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel 1AC - Evergreening |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1AC - Trips Waiver |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Cooper City NR | Judge: Amadea Datel 1AC - Baudrillard |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All hi |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran 1AC - Debris |
| Sunvite | Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All Hi |
| Sunvite | 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer 1AC - Larp (OST I think) Disclosure |
| Sunvite | 4 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: Delon Fuller 1AC - Non T Disability |
| Sunvite | 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - OST |
| The Tradition | 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: Luiz Bravim 1AC - Prisoners |
| The Tradition | 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Isaiah Salgado 1AC - T FWK |
| The Tradition | 1 | Opponent: Pine View EL | Judge: Alex Anania 1AC - Teachers Unions |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: Westford AW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne 1AC - Evergreening |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra 1AC - Genes |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit HZ | Judge: Alex Rivera 1AC - Pandemics |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Devin Jiang 1AC - Intuitionism |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Quarters | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Rohit Lakshman - Eric Tang - Keshav Dandu 1AC - Pragmatism |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: Finals | Opponent: Dingus myself | Judge: Dingi ayman and yash Ways to contact me: | 2/1/22 |
0 - Harvard DisclosureTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Quads | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 2/19/22 |
0 - Strake DisclosureTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 12/18/21 |
0 - Sunvite DisclosureTournament: Sunvite | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 1/7/22 |
G - Framework - UtilTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 3 | Opponent: Midlothian AC | Judge: Carlos Carrasco Pain and pleasure are intrinsically valuable – to justify beyond that runs into moral incoherence. Moen 16,Moen 16 ~Ole Martin Moen, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo "An Argument for Hedonism" Journal of Value Inquiry (Springer), 50 (2) 2016: 267–281~ SJDI RCT by JPark AND places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer additionally.1~ Life is a prerequisite to value – stop death because it ontologically destroys the subject and is irreversible. And extinction hijacks and side constrains the framework.Pummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT AND be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters) 2~ Theory –A~ Ground – Every impact can be linked to util but other ethics exclude most impacts. Ground key to fairness since you need arguments to win.B~ Topic Lit – Most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re written for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Key to fairness and education since it’s a lens through which we engage the res.3~ Use epistemic modesty for evaluating the framework debate – that’s multiplying the probability a framework is true by its relative offenseA~ Substantively true since high probability of winning your framework increases the odds that your impacts matters, but that probability is still dependent of the impacts. A 51 chance your framework is true still means there is a 49 chance my impacts matter – modesty produces the highest chance of moral actionsB~ Clash—disincentives debaters from going all in for framework which means we get the ideal balance between topic ed and phil ed4~ Only consequences can explain degrees of wrongness, i.e. why it’s worse to break a promise to a dying friend than to skip meeting someone for lunch – either ethical theories cannot explain comparative badness, or it collapses | 1/29/22 |
G - Hijack - EgoismTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Util collapses to egoism – Solipsism is true – one can only verify self-consciousness since verification relies on our experience of consciousness which we can only do from our own consciousness because we inherently know it exists. However, I cannot verify the existence of others since I cannot go inside or explore their consciousness. Thus, util can only account for my own pleasure and cannot generate a normative reason to care about anyone else’s, which means the only obligation is to maximize my own pleasure.That negates – a) aggregation is impossible by states since it assumes the ability to verify another agent exists b) there’s no obligation under util since there’s no reason care about anyone else’s pain or pleasure and the subject can do whatever it wants. | 11/7/21 |
G - Hijack - Egoism v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: James Stuckert Util collapses to egoism – Solipsism is true – one can only verify self-consciousness since verification relies on our experience of consciousness which we can only do from our own consciousness because we inherently know it exists. However, I cannot verify the existence of others since I cannot go inside or explore their consciousness. Thus, util can only account for my own pleasure and cannot generate a normative reason to care about anyone else’s, which means the only obligation is to maximize my own pleasure.That negates – a) aggregation is impossible by states since it assumes the ability to verify another agent exists b) there’s no obligation under util since there’s no reason care about anyone else’s pain or pleasure and the subject can do whatever it wants. | 11/7/21 |
G - Hijack - Egoism v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw Util collapses to egoism – Solipsism is true – one can only verify self-consciousness since verification relies on our experience of consciousness which we can only do from our own consciousness because we inherently know it exists. However, I cannot verify the existence of others since I cannot go inside or explore their consciousness. Thus, util can only account for my own pleasure and cannot generate a normative reason to care about anyone else’s, which means the only obligation is to maximize my own pleasure.That negates – a) aggregation is impossible by states since it assumes the ability to verify another agent exists b) there’s no obligation under util since there’s no reason care about anyone else’s pain or pleasure and the subject can do whatever it wants. | 11/7/21 |
G - Hijack - Egoism v4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki | 11/7/21 |
G - Hijack - Egoism v5Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. Util collapses to egoism – Solipsism is true – one can only verify self-consciousness since verification relies on our experience of consciousness which we can only do from our own consciousness because we inherently know it exists. However, I cannot verify the existence of others since I cannot go inside or explore their consciousness. Thus, util can only account for my own pleasure and cannot generate a normative reason to care about anyone else’s, which means the only obligation is to maximize my own pleasure.That negates – a) aggregation is impossible by states since it assumes the ability to verify another agent exists b) there’s no obligation under util since there’s no reason care about anyone else’s pain or pleasure and the subject can do whatever it wants. | 11/7/21 |
G - Hijack - Egoism v6Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert Util collapses to egoism – Solipsism is true – one can only verify self-consciousness since verification relies on our experience of consciousness which we can only do from our own consciousness because we inherently know it exists. However, I cannot verify the existence of others since I cannot go inside or explore their consciousness. Thus, util can only account for my own pleasure and cannot generate a normative reason to care about anyone else’s, which means the only obligation is to maximize my own pleasure.That negates – a) aggregation is impossible by states since it assumes the ability to verify another agent exists b) there’s no obligation under util since there’s no reason care about anyone else’s pain or pleasure and the subject can do whatever it wants. | 2/19/22 |
G - Hijack - HobbesTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu Hobbes hijacks –1~ Humanity’s ability to think about the future leads to perpetual pain created by fear of the future – only a sovereign that can protect future wellbeing solves. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more." This explains the real implication of pleasure being intrinsically good to humans – the relationship doesn’t just end there.2~ Non-descriptive words necessary for ethics don’t have a stable meaning so there is infinite conflict over how to interpret them making peace impossible. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND almost any one and the same object" (L 6.5). Only a sovereign can absolve conflict over the meaning of pleasure to providing a starting point for its maximization. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND or aversive by the sovereign’s judgment. More on this in the next chapter 3~ Collapses – whenever a sovereign is removed, each person becomes their own sovereign and must attempt to force others under their will until someone prevails and becomes the sovereign. Parrish :Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND comparison with others"46 or human nature as a creator of meaning." | 11/20/21 |
G - Hijack - Hobbes v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.Presume neg –1~ We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true.2~ Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways.Util collapses into a world of chaos without the will of an absolute sovereign:1~ Humanity’s ability to think about the future leads to perpetual pain created by fear of the future – only a sovereign that can protect future wellbeing solves. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more." This explains the real implication of pleasure being intrinsically good to humans – the relationship doesn’t just end there.2~ Non-descriptive words necessary for ethics don’t have a stable meaning so there is infinite conflict over how to interpret them making peace impossible. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND almost any one and the same object" (L 6.5). Only a sovereign can absolve conflict over the meaning of pleasure to providing a starting point for its maximization. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND or aversive by the sovereign’s judgment. More on this in the next chapter That o/w pain and pleasure are structurally negative and can’t refer to reality. If I say that I gain lots of pleasure or pain from doing X activity, you may be able to relate, but you can’t feel the exact same way and don’t have the same orientation as I do.3~ Collapses – whenever a sovereign is removed, each person becomes their own sovereign and must attempt to force others under their will until someone prevails and becomes the sovereign. Parrish :Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND comparison with others"46 or human nature as a creator of meaning." Now negate:1~ The aff creates post-fiat obligations for the state – this is incoherent because it implies an authority higher than the state to constrain the sovereign. Only sovereign entities can create moral obligations, so the state can’t have an obligation to act2~ The aff gives employees, specifically public sector ones, the right to strike against the state which is definitionally a violation of the sovereign’s will | 12/18/21 |
G - Hijack - Hobbes v3Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: Nova CD | Judge: Jeong-Wan Choi Hobbes hijacks –1~ Humanity’s ability to think about the future leads to perpetual pain created by fear of the future – only a sovereign that can protect future wellbeing solves. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more." This explains the real implication of pleasure being intrinsically good to humans – the relationship doesn’t just end there.2~ Non-descriptive words necessary for ethics don’t have a stable meaning so there is infinite conflict over how to interpret them making peace impossible. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND almost any one and the same object" (L 6.5). Only a sovereign can absolve conflict over the meaning of pleasure to providing a starting point for its maximization. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND or aversive by the sovereign’s judgment. More on this in the next chapter 3~ Collapses – whenever a sovereign is removed, each person becomes their own sovereign and must attempt to force others under their will until someone prevails and becomes the sovereign. Parrish :Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND comparison with others"46 or human nature as a creator of meaning." | 11/21/21 |
G - Hijack - Problem of Other MindsTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran | 2/19/22 |
G - K - DeanTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Joshua Porter 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 – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. The alternative is the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon – only our methodology can fight capitalism, anything else allows it to take over co-opting any movement – Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND in, welcoming the new comrade into relations irreducible to their broader setting. The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 2/20/22 |
G - K - HegelTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Hegel is racist – Aeon:https://aeon.co/essays/racism-is-baked-into-the-structure-of-dialectical-philosophy | 2/19/22 |
G - K - MoenTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: South Eugene Independent KS | Judge: Eric He Their scholarship is hateful and a reason to lose the round—their author endorsed pedophilia and actively advocated for pedophilic content.Moen 15 ~Moen, O. M. (Professor of Ethics at Oslo Metropolitan University). "The ethics of pedophilia". Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 9(1), 111-124. 2015-05-09. Accessed 2/2/2022. https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk'i'praksis/article/view/1718 CHO~ AND adult-child sex, the justification for today’s widespread ban is weak. Drop the debater—academic spaces have way too many sympathizers who ignore violence against children, and every act must be challenged in the most unflinching terms because anything else reinforces the epistemic bias in favor of rationalizing disgusting behavior.Grant 18 ~Alec Grant (Independent Scholar, retired from the Uiversity of Brighton where he was a Reader in Narrative Mental Health). "Sanitizing Academics and Damaged Lives" Mad In The UK, 12 April 2018. https://www.madintheuk.com/2018/12/sanitizing-academics-and-damaged-lives/ WWDH~Academics who sympathize with paedophilia constitute its intellectual public relations arm. Their role is to make child-adult sex presentable, more acceptable to the public, fit for polite society, sugar-coated, glossed with a scholarly veneer, sanitized. Snapshots of sanitizing academic activity from the last 40 years show how this seeps into and contaminates public policy, education and practice in insidious ways. This is done via the workings of power, privilege, perverse cronyism, and, as Pilgrim (2018) argues, as a result of widespread moral stupor and denial. It’s astonishing that this happens in the face of the psychological and development features of complex post-trauma which are often a consequence of child sexual abuse. By pathologizing adult survivors, often with the ‘Borderline Personality Disorder’ (BPD) tag, mainstream psychiatric business-as-usual plays out its role in suppressing the truth about the consequences of paedophilia among adult survivors. Pilgrim (2018) reminds us that care and mutuality are core ethical features of all sexual practices. As someone who was for many years associated with cognitive therapy, I’m interested in ‘cognitive, or thought distortions’, which are used by people in rationalising their behaviour in self-serving ways. We know from Pilgrim and many other writers, researchers and practitioners about the rationalisations of perpetrators of child sexual abuse and exploitation. They include: Children are not victims but willing participants; They want it; They enjoy it; It’s about friendship; It’s about love; It helps children develop and mature. According to Pilgrim (2018), the ‘heyday’ period of academic versions of such rationalisations was the 1970s. 1977 was the year of an unsuccessful lobby by French intellectuals to defend intergenerational sex. Included among these were the otherwise well-respected philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Jaques Derrida, Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault. These figures were at the forefront of the use of academic authority to lobby governments to liberalise and decriminalise adult-child sexual contact. In 1978, Foucault took part in a France-Culture broadcast with two other gay theorists, Hocquengham and Danet, to discuss the legal aspects of sex between adults and children. They wanted a repeal of the law preventing this because they took the view that in a liberal (they really meant libertarian) society, sexual preferences generally should not be the business of the law. Foucault, Hocquengham and Danet made the following assertions: that children can, and have the capacity to, consent to such relations without being coerced into doing so; that abuse and post-abuse trauma isn’t real; that the law is part of an oppressive and repressive heteronormative social control discourse which unfairly targets sexual minorities; that children don’t constitute a vulnerable population; that children can and are capable of making the first move in seducing adults (they introduced here the category of ‘the seducing child’); that the laws against sexual relations between children and adults actually function to protect children from their own desires, making them an oppressed and repressed group; that – in the language of the sociologist Stanley Cohen – international public horror about sexual relations between adults and children is a form of moral panic which feeds into constructing the ‘paedophile’ as a folk devil, in turn provoking public vigilantism; that sex between adults and children is actually a trivial matter when compared with ‘real crimes’ such as the murder of old ladies; that many members of the judiciary and other authority figures and groups don’t actually believe paedophilia to be a crime; and that consent should be a private contractual matter between the adult and the child. Fast forward to 1981. The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) has been active for seven years. This was a pro-paedophile activist group, founded in the UK in 1974 and officially disbanded in 1984. The group, an international organisation of people who traded in obscene material, campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent. Dr Brian Taylor, the research director and member of PIE, and sociology lecturer at the University of Sussex produced the controversial book Perspectives on Paedophilia, which had the aim of enlightening social workers and youth workers about the benefits of paedophilia. Taylor, who identified as gay, advocated ‘guilt-free pederasty’ (sexual relations between two males, one of whom is a minor). He argued that people generally are hostile to paedophilia only because they don’t understand it, and If they did wouldn’t be so against it. So it was simply a matter of clearing up prejudice and ignorance. | 2/21/22 |
G - K - UtilTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Util creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 11/7/21 |
G - K - Util v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: James Stuckert Util creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 11/7/21 |
G - K - Util v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw Util creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 11/7/21 |
G - NC - Argumentation ImpossibleTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 5~ One can never justify the inference from p to q without another proposition – that’s infinitely regressive, so all logical argumentation is impossible – turns regress - Carroll 95:Reprinted from Lewis Carroll, ~Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, better known by his pen name Lewis Carroll, was an English writer of children's fiction, notably Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel Through the Looking-Glass. He was noted for his facility with word play, logic, and fantasy.~ "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles," Mind 4, No. 14 (April 1895): 278-280. LHP AV DOA: 7/13/21 | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Cartesian SkepTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson b~ Triggers skep – in order to base ethics in empirics in the natural world we must verify our knowledge of it. However, truth requires one to be absolutely certain about a statement or else the statement cannot be held true. For example, saying all apples are red requires certainty that no apples are blue or else the statement is an assumption. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of a deceptive demon who deceives all in their beliefs while simultaneously assuring ourselves that we are right. Thus, one can never prove that the external world exists because our knowledge of it may always be incorrect. This also proves solipsism is true as we can only be sure of our own mind and consciousness, but we can never verify that of the other - Sinnott-Armstrong 15:Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter, (Philosopher), "Moral Skepticism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 17, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/~~#MorExp. LHP AV AND the deceiving demon hypothesis. Skeptics conclude that no such belief is justified. | 12/18/21 |
G - NC - Cartesian SkepticismTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 2~ Cartesian skepticism – truth requires absolute certainty, Sinnott-Armstrong 15:Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter, (Philosopher), "Moral Skepticism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 17, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/~~#MorExp. LHP AV One cannot rule out the possibility of a deceptive demon, Sinnott-Armstrong 2:Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter, (Philosopher), "Moral Skepticism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 17, 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/~~#MorExp. LHP AV | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Cartesian Skepticism v2Tournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran 3~ Cartesian Skep – truth requires one to be absolutely certain about a statement or else the statement cannot be held true. For example, saying all apples are red requires certainty that no apples are blue or else the statement is an assumption. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of a deceptive demon who deceives all in their beliefs while simultaneously assuring ourselves that we are right. Thus, one can never prove that the external world exists because our knowledge of it may always be incorrect. This also proves solipsism is true as we can only be sure of our own mind and consciousness, but we can never verify that of the other. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Cartesian Skepticism v3Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 6~ Cartesian Skep – truth requires one to be absolutely certain about a statement or else the statement cannot be held true. For example, saying all apples are red requires certainty that no apples are blue or else the statement is an assumption. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of a deceptive demon who deceives all in their beliefs while simultaneously assuring ourselves that we are right. Thus, one can never prove that the external world exists because our knowledge of it may always be incorrect. This also proves solipsism is true as we can only be sure of our own mind and consciousness, but we can never verify that of the other. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Concept SkepTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu 3~ Concept Skep – there are 2 forms of knowledge – deductive, knowledge from logical proofs, and empirical, knowledge from experience. However, all knowledge is grouped into two concepts – universals or particulars. The concept "I am Prateek" is particular because there is only one me, but "bears are white" is universal because it applies to all theoretical bears. Universal knowledge is epistemically inaccessible because you must prove a negative existential which requires omniscience to prove. For the concept, "bears are white" to be true, I must be certain there are no brown bears, as that would disprove my claim. | 11/20/21 |
G - NC - Concept Skepticism v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 3~ Concept Skep – there are 2 forms of knowledge – deductive, knowledge from logical proofs, and empirical, knowledge from experience. However, all knowledge is grouped into two concepts – universals or particulars. The concept "I am Prateek" is particular because there is only one me, but "bears are white" is universal because it applies to all theoretical bears. Universal knowledge is epistemically inaccessible because you must prove a negative existential which requires omniscience to prove. For the concept, "bears are white" to be true, I must be certain there are no brown bears, as that would disprove my claim. That negates because it’s impossible to prove a universal concept like the resolution i.e., striking is uncondtionally good. At best, they prove this means particularism is true, which still means you negate because the aff isn’t particular. | 12/18/21 |
G - NC - Concept Skepticism v3Tournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran 1~ Concept Skep – there are 2 forms of knowledge – deductive, knowledge from logical proofs, and empirical, knowledge from experience. However, all knowledge is grouped into two concepts – universals or particulars. The concept "I am Prateek" is particular because there is only one me, but "bears are white" is universal because it applies to all theoretical bears. Universal knowledge is epistemically inaccessible because you must prove a negative existential which requires omniscience to prove. For the concept, "bears are white" to be true, I must be certain there are no brown bears, as that would disprove my claim. That negates because it’s impossible to prove a universal concept like the resolution i.e., appropriation is bad. At best, they prove this means particularism is true, which still means you negate because the aff isn’t particular. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Concept Skepticism v4Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 1~ Concept Skep – there are 2 forms of knowledge – deductive, knowledge from logical proofs, and empirical, knowledge from experience. However, all knowledge is grouped into two concepts – universals or particulars. The concept "I am Prateek" is particular because there is only one me, but "bears are white" is universal because it applies to all theoretical bears. Universal knowledge is epistemically inaccessible because you must prove a negative existential which requires omniscience to prove. For the concept, "bears are white" to be true, I must be certain there are no brown bears, as that would disprove my claim. That negates because it’s impossible to prove a universal concept like the resolution i.e., striking is good. At best, they prove this means particularism is true, which still means you negate because the aff isn’t particular. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - CulpabilityTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 4~ Culpability – their framing cant prescribe obligations in the physical towards agents – a strong divide between the noumenal and phenomenal means that ethical calculus in one cannot transfer into the other as obligations are nonsensical in the physical if reason exists independent. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - HegelTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Houston Memorial SC | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz Freedom must exist in practice rather than only theory, or it cannot be stated that the subject is free. Freedom must be noumenal or uncaused by the laws of nature, but humans are phenomenal and subject to these laws and external interference meaning ensuring abstract rights materially is necessary for freedom. Since we are phenomenal and unavoidably change through life, our perception of the world is constantly in flux meaning there is no absolute truth for what rights we create, but they can only be recognized through intersubjectivity. Schroeder 05:Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. AND ), they are a means by which man distinguishes himself from nature. 130 Property and legal contracts are the only medium of recognition and intersubjectivity capable of ensuring the abstract right, Schroeder 2:*bracketed for gendered language* Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. AND however, be a good pragmatic argument in favor of such a regime. Thus, the standard is consistency with materializing abstract right.Abstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order. Controlling their production undermines the system through which we manifest our rights, meaning it violates our freedom as subjects and outweighs. Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) Negate –1~ Hume’s Guillotine – nothing can cross the is-ought gap, Hume 1739:David Hume, Philosopher, "A Treatise of Human Nature," 1739 LHP AV AND can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. NC Solves – we don’t need to bridge the gap between the noumenal and phenomenal – we can properly produce morality through the phenomenal via the NC.2~ Personality theory – IP is uniquely an extension of reason and sensibility through personal investment – Priya 08:Priya, Kanu. "Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification." NUJS Law Review, vol. 2008, no. 2, 2008, p. 359-366. HeinOnline. LHP PS | 1/16/22 |
G - NC - Humes GuillotineTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1~ Hume’s Guillotine – nothing can cross the is-ought gap, Hume 1739:David Hume, Philosopher, "A Treatise of Human Nature," 1739 LHP AV | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Humes GuillotineTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 4~ Is-Ought Gap – all moral statements are descriptive and cannot be truly moral as they explain descriptive facts about the world. For example, saying "x is illegal, thus one ought not do x" doesn’t justify why one ought not do x. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - JusticeTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 5~ Justice Paradox – a just decision requires immediate action else on is complicit with the injustice they critique. However, the formulation the belief that x practice is unjust and y solution solves takes time, which means making claims about justice are contradictory. | 12/18/21 |
G - NC - Justice v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 3~ All moral actions are inherently immoral –A~ Justice Paradox – a just decision requires immediate action else on is complicit with the injustice they critique. However, the formulation the belief that x practice is unjust and y solution solves takes time, which means making claims about justice are contradictory. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - P PTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - P P v3Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Permissibility negates – A~ Semantics - unjust is defined as morally prohibited or bad which means permissibility is definitionally negative ground as proving the affirmative would require proving a prohibition which permissibility denies – B~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensatePresumption negates – A~ We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not mean it is assumed to be true – B~ Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - P P v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 1/10/22 |
G - NC - Rule FollowingTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 4~ Rule Following – nothing inherent a rule mandates a specific interpretation to be followed. For example, nothing inherent in an arrow means that it has to point in one direction. Thus, the moral rule the aff sets is infinitely regressive and fails. | 12/18/21 |
G - NC - Rule Following v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 2~ Rule Following – nothing inherent a rule mandates a specific interpretation to be followed. For example, nothing inherent in an arrow means that it has to point in one direction. Thus, the moral rule the aff sets is infinitely regressive and fails.justifying voting neg. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - ZenosTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert Zeno’s Paradox – assume we are starting at any position A and want to get to position Z. In order to move from position A to Z we must cross halfway point position B, but in order to get to position B, we must cross the halfway point in between A and B, being C, and so on until infinity. Two impacts: a~ movement is theoretically illogical thus the plan does nothing means you vote negative on presumption b~ empirical conjectures result in external world skep – disproving logical premises with material examples justifies a disconnect between logic and the physical. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Zenos v2Tournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran 2~ Zeno’s Paradox – assume we are starting at any position A and want to get to position Z. In order to move from position A to Z we must cross halfway point position B, but in order to get to position B, we must cross the halfway point in between A and B, being C, and so on until infinity. Two impacts: a~ movement is theoretically illogical thus the plan does nothing means you vote negative on presumption b~ empirical conjectures result in external world skep – disproving logical premises with material examples justifies a disconnect between logic and the physical. Proving motion possible in the physical proves a rejection of the physical given the illogicality of the example, meaning we could be deceived and its not verifiable. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Zenos v3Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher 5~ Zeno’s Paradox – assume we are starting at any position A and want to get to position Z. In order to move from position A to Z we must cross halfway point position B, but in order to get to position B, we must cross the halfway point in between A and B, being C, and so on until infinity. Two impacts: a~ movement is theoretically illogical thus the plan does nothing means you vote negative on presumption b~ empirical conjectures result in external world skep – disproving logical premises with material examples justifies a disconnect between logic and the physical. Proving motion possible in the physical proves a rejection of the physical given the illogicality of the example, meaning we could be deceived and its not verifiable. | 2/19/22 |
G - NC - Zenos v4Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 6~ Zeno’s Paradox – assume we are starting at any position A and want to get to position Z. In order to move from position A to Z we must cross halfway point B, but in order to get to position B, we must cross the halfway point in between A and B, being C, and so on until infinity. Two impacts: a~ movement is theoretically illogical thus the plan does nothing means you vote negative on presumption b~ empirical conjectures result in external world skep – disproving logical premises with material examples justifies a disconnect between logic and the physical. Proving motion possible in the physical proves a rejection of the physical given the illogicality of the example, meaning we could be deceived and its not verifiable. | 2/19/22 |
G - ROB - TTTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Jalyn Wu The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Logic: Debate is fundamentally a game with rules, which requires the better competitor to win. Every other ROB is just a reason why there are other ways to play the game but are not consistent enough with the purpose of the game | 11/7/21 |
G - ROB - TT v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert The Role of the Ballot is to vote aff if the resolution is a true statement and vote negative if its false, no new counter ROB –~1~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity ~2~ Fiat is illusory: Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn’t change anything and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me. Answering this triggers constitutivism since the win is necessary for your scholarship which means rules inside of the game matter.~3~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT. | 2/19/22 |
G - ROB - TT v3Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu 2~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT. | 11/20/21 |
G - ROB - TT v4Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson The Role of the Ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution. Vote aff if the resolution is true, and negate if I disprove its truth:1~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity2~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT. | 12/18/21 |
G - ROB - TT v5Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher The role of the ballot is determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.1~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity 2~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT. | 2/19/22 |
G - ROB - TT v6Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer TT1~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity 2~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT. | 1/10/22 |
G - ROB - TT v7Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Houston Memorial SC | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz The role of the ballot is determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity b) Anything else is intervention - Branse: AND activity with oscillating rules where judges cannot be held to any predictable standard. ~2~ Fiat is illusory: Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn’t change anything and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me. Answering this triggers constitutivism since the win is necessary for your scholarship which means rules inside of the game matter.~3~ Isomorphism: ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it’s solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn’t a closest estimate.~4~ Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.~5~ Bindingness: a) all arguments pre-assume that they are true as judges don’t vote an arguments proven false b) in order to win that your ROB is superior to TT you must prove true the claim that your ROB is better than TT.~6~ Intrinsicness: Truth Testing is internal to the process of debating - Branse 2:9-4-2015, "The Role of the Judge By David Branse (Part One)," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2015/09/04/the-role-of-the-judge-by-david-branse-part-one/ In debate, those rules are testing the truth of a pre-given and pre-prepared topic. Switch-side debate provides a unique forum where we A) don’t have to endorse our arguments as true since we contradict ourselves every round ~and~, B) view the process of warranting as supremely valuable, and C) can challenge all ethical assumptions we hold. Truth testing allows debaters to analyze arguments from a wide range of viewpoints, with an emphasis on contesting the warrants of every argument. In my opinion, the value and skills garnered in debate arise from the process of debating, not the content of the arguments or a particular pedagogical viewpoint. Debaters learn to structure logical syllogisms to warrant everything from the outrageous to the intuitive. The process of truth testing teaches debaters how to make decisions in the real world. We learn how to justify our beliefs and become good advocates not by rejecting this paradigm but by embracing it. Competition to determine the truth of a proposition motivates debaters to engage in the very practices that provide us education. Debaters extensively prep and research unique topical ideas for the sake of winning. Few debaters would have learned as much as they did about the living wage without debate’s competitive incentive.~7~ Critical pedagogy forces the judge into the role of coercer – Rickert:(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal, wbem) AND liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class The aff negates –Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 1/16/22 |
G - Theory - 1AR HedgeTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert | 2/19/22 |
G - Theory - 1AR Hedge v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1ar theory is illegitimate –A~ 1ar theory time skews the rest of the round since they have the 1ar and 2ar, which is 7 minutes compared to my 2nr, which is 6 minutes. This gives them a whole minute advantage on the theory debate, that’s a lot in such a time crunched event and outweighs their strat stuff since I need time to execute strat and get ground.Drop the arg on 1ar theoryA~ the 1ar will always be incentivized to go for theory because they get a ballot implication, destroying substance engagementB~ You shouldn’t stake the round on incomplete 1ar blips that become 3 minute 2ars – that wrecks neg win percentage because it means the 2nr has to overcover 1 second arguments | 11/20/21 |
G - Theory - 1AR Hedge v3Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer Hedge1ar theory is illegitimate –A~ 1ar theory time skews the rest of the round since they have the 1ar and 2ar, which is 7 minutes compared to my 2nr, which is 6 minutes. This gives them a whole minute advantage on the theory debate, that’s a lot in such a time crunched event and outweighs their strat stuff since I need time to execute strat and get ground.Drop the arg on 1ar theoryA~ the 1ar will always be incentivized to go for theory because they get a ballot implication, destroying substance engagementB~ You shouldn’t stake the round on incomplete 1ar blips that become 3 minute 2ars – that wrecks neg win percentage because it means the 2nr has to overcover 1 second arguments | 1/10/22 |
G - Theory - Cant Read EM and Extinction FirstTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw Interp – The neg can’t read epistemic modesty and an extinction impact.Violation – you didThe standard is infinite abuse – Reading extinction under ur fwk has a 100 magnitude which means pairing it up with EM all u hve to do is put marginal defense to auto win on substance. This justifies a aff ballot every round because of the size of the impact which controls the internal link to clash since there’s no reason for the neg to engage given an auto win. | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Cant Say No Neg ArgumentsTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Rohit Lakshman - Eric Tang - Keshav Dandu 1Interpretation: the affirmative may not claim the negative doesn’t get arguments | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Cant say AFC and Aff ROB ChoiceTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu | 1/28/22 |
G - Theory - Fair 1NTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Jalyn Wu Interpretation: If there are offensive theory arguments in the AC, then they must explicitly outline in the text of the AC a strategy that the 1N could employ that doesn’t violate any theory constraints in the aff. To clarify, you can still read your spikes, you just need to also specify a strat.Violation:Standards:Substantive Education: They need to specify in the text of the aff what type of strategies would be permissible because otherwise it is inevitable that I will slip up and that the round will turn into a theory debate. This denies any sort of substantive education since there are always more constraints on what sort of substantive education is good under the aff underview. It also makes the quality of the theory debate worse because the arguments are developed very unclearly in the underview, rather they can either read just a few arguments that are well developed or they read the arguments in the 1AR.They can’t specify the arguments in CX becausea) there is no reason I should waste time on clarifying your advocacyb) I need all the prep time to make a strategyc) it’s inefficient to try and question them through each strategy that doesn’t work takes too longd) they need to specify before I begin forming a strategy because they need to clarify what ground is entailed by the shells because absent that its impossible to tell what the combination looks like.Key to education because in order to know the truth of the claim we need to be able to contest it.B. Strat Skew: If they don’t specify what sort of strategy wouldn’t violate any of the shells then they can defend contradictory spikes that makes it impossible for the neg to win because there is always a violation. This outweighs any aff arguments for why the 1AR is hard because contradictory spikes are functionally NIBs, since you have to respond to the spikes but you don’t win if you do. This should also serve as the litmus test to whether or not the combination of spikes should be something that is fair in this round. If the strategy that they said wouldn’t violate any spikes is absurd and offers the neg no ground then you should err voting neg off of the independent unfairness of their specific combination of spikes. This is outweighs on fairness because it is a matter of comparing 0 possible neg ground to a slightly harder time in the 1AR.And, paragraph theory is uniquely hard to flow- it’s all short, blippy arguments that are not well structured, uniquely disadvantaging disabled individuals, which excludes them from the activity. THOMPSON:Marshall Thompson – Former Debater and Current Coach. http://vbriefly.com/2015/04/21/marshall-thoughts/ AND not track with what we want when assessing who did the better debating. Accessibility is an independent voter that outweighs: if people can’t participate in debate then what happens inside of rounds isn’t relevant. Also turns the aff because proves the aff isn’t open to everyone and procedural deliberation are uniquely hurting people.~3~ No RVI’s – AND win they were fair, they will just default to outframe the combo shell | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Must Follow Own Disclosure InterpsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: James Stuckert Interpretation: Debaters must follow their own disclosure interpretation that they disclose on their High School NDCA LD wiki pageViolation: They disclose the interp that the affirmative should send a full text of the aff 30 mins before the round even if its new – they don’t follow that – they didn’t send me the full text of the aff 30 mins before even though it was a new aff
Vote neg:~1~ Norming – if we are going to deliberate about what is the best disclosure practice, but you don’t follow your own, you destroy all possibilities of setting norms because no follows them – it just becomes a game – norming comes first it’s the terminal impact to theory and o/w on scope~2~ Academic Integrity – they are actively lying and being a hypocrite in a school based and funded space – academic integrity controls the internal link to all other voters because fairness only matters given that we only want to keep the game fair to precure some sort of benefits – it’s the worst form of unfairness by disadnvating people otusdie of the debate by making fake arguments. Also link turns education because eduaction is only attainable by being academically honest – for example if I plagarized a research paper I don’t learn due to dishonesty~3~ Reciprocity – the justify an reciprocal burden where they never have to follow their norms but everyone else has toFairness is a voterb~ fairness is a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) norm setting c~ dropping the arg is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations –a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control andb~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Must Follow Own Disclosure Interps v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher Interpretation: Debaters must follow their own disclosure interpretation that they disclose on their High School NDCA LD wiki pageViolation: They disclose the interp that the affirmative must disclose advantage areas and 30 minutes before the roudn – they don’t follow that – they didn’t sent me stuff barely before the round started and didn’t disclose advantage areas
Vote neg:~1~ Norming – if we are going to deliberate about what is the best disclosure practice, but you don’t follow your own, you destroy all possibilities of setting norms because no follows them – it just becomes a game – norming comes first it’s the terminal impact to theory and o/w on scope~2~ Academic Integrity – they are actively lying and being a hypocrite in a school based and funded space – academic integrity controls the internal link to all other voters because fairness only matters given that we only want to keep the game fair to precure some sort of benefits – it’s the worst form of unfairness by disadnvating people otusdie of the debate by making fake arguments. Also link turns education because eduaction is only attainable by being academically honest – for example if I plagarized a research paper I don’t learn due to dishonesty~3~ Reciprocity – the justify an reciprocal burden where they never have to follow their norms but everyone else has toFairness is a voterb~ fairness is a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) norm setting c~ dropping the arg is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations –a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control andb~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones | 2/19/22 |
G - Theory - Must Follow Own Disclosure Interps v3Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Harvard Trips 1N vs. Dulles TY | 2/22/22 |
G - Theory - Must Follow Own Disclosure Interps v3Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Harvard Trips 1N vs. Dulles TY | 2/22/22 |
G - Theory - Must Have Delineated Advocacy TextTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Houston Memorial SC | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz Interpretation: The affirmative must articulate a delineated advocacy text in the text of the 1AC.1~ Neg ground2~ Statis Point | 1/16/22 |
G - Theory - Must Use Correct Tournament NameTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu Interp: Debaters must disclose tournaments on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki under the actual name of the tournament on tabroom.To clarify- when you look up the tournament name from the wiki on tab, the entry must pop upViolation – they disclose a tournament as ‘bronx, when bronx is looked up on tabroom, nothing comes up that andrew went to with these pairings. Screenshots in the docThe standard is inclusion - they make debate inaccessible to novices or small schools who Inclusion ow, other impacts assume that you have the ability to access the round in the first place.Reject reasonability on inclusion impacts- you can’t be reasonably inclusionaryReject every reason why disclosure is bad- you concede to the validitiy of putting tournament names by putting it on your wiki in the first,They will say the shell is arbitrary but literal wiki rules prove otherwise | 1/28/22 |
G - Theory - ROB SpecTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the 1AC.Violation: They don’tStandards:1. Strat Skew – Absent a text in the 1AC, they can read multiple pieces of offense under different ROBs and then read a new one in the 1AR so they never substantively lose debates under the ROB, it just always becomes a 2nr debate about whether the ROB is good or not comparatively to the 1n’s which moots engagement. That means infinite abuse – Reading a new ROB in the 1AR makes it so all you have to do is dump on the 1N ROB and marginally extend your warrants in the 2ar and the neg can’t do anything about it since there is no 3NR to answer the 2ar weighing or extrapolations, you already have conceded offense, all you need is the ROB.2. Reciprocity – (a) restarting the ROB debate in the 1ar puts you at a 7-6 advantage– putting it in the aff makes it 13-13 (b) you have one more speech to contest my ROB and weigh (c) I can only read a ROB in the 1N so you should read it in your first speech– that’s definitionally an equal burden.education is a voter – it’s the only reason debate is funded, No RVIs – ~a~ logic – you don’t win for meeting your burden, that o/w all args need to make logical sense to be evaluated ~b~ creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew, Prefer Competing Interps over reasonability – ~a~ reasonability’s arbitrary and forces judge intervention especially with 2ar recontextualizations to always sound like the more reasonable debater b) norm setting - we find the best possible norms c) reasonability collapses - you use offense/defense paradigm to evaluate brightlines, I’ll defend a norm setting model, anything else is arbitrary, infinitely regressive, and interventionist, theres no way to verify in round abuse, DTD – ~a~ epistemic skew – I was structurally precluded from engaging in substance, means you can eval it, they are always ahead ~b~ deters future abuse – empirically confirmed via a prioris, ,I get new 2nr arguments, I don’t know implications until the 2nr, k2 method testing since we maximize the time spent debating the aff, and if the aff is truly true there is no reason I shouldn’t be able toNC theory first – ~a~ they were abusive first means it comes lexically prior, my abuse was justified in response to theirs ~b~ we have more speeches to norm over it, | 11/7/21 |
G- Theory - Framework SpecificationTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman Interpretation: All 1AC standards must delineatesWeighing metrics under their frameworkExplanations of what constitutes general offenseViolation – they didn’t1. Shiftiness – if the framework is too vague, I can’t generate offense – they can be shifty and rearticulate their framework in the 1NR – decimates 1NC stasis which is the only basis for strategy – also uniquely harms novices who don’t know what to ask or don’t know how frameworks operates- CX checks fail because they can be shifty and judges don’t flow it2. Phil education – Non-conventional frameworks need specification - nobody knows how to follow their standard and everyone disagrees on what offense matters which also means the judge can’t resolve it which outweighs a~ Phil ed is unique to LD debate and b~ resolvability means judges cannot make a decisionFairness – a~ testing – b~ inevitabilityEducation- a~ schools fund debateNo RVIs – A~ logic – you don’t win for meeting your burden, that o/w all args need to make logical sense to be evaluated – B~ creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp and get both speeches to weigh which chills neg reading theory means infinite abusePrefer Competing Interps over reasonability – A~ reasonability’s arbitrary and forces judge intervention especially with 2ar recontextualizations to always sound like the more reasonable debater – B~ norm setting - we find the best possible norms – C~ reasonability collapses - you use offense/defense paradigm to evaluate brightlinesDTD – A~ Epistemic Skew – I was structurally precluded from engaging in substance, means you can eval it, they are always ahead – B~ deters future abuse – empirically confirmed via a prioriI get new 2nr paradigm issues and arguments – A~ forces an irreciprocal and unmanageable time burden on the negative b/c you haven’t read the shell – B~ norming – it’s the most contextual to your shellNC theory first – A~ they were abusive first means it comes lexically prior, my abuse was justified in response to theirs – B~ we have more speeches to norm over it, so it produces the best norm | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - CP - PublicPrivateTournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer CP text: The United States federal government should:A~ Fund a public-private partnership for deep space explorationB~ Triple NASA’s budget and earmark increased funding for cooperative deep space explorationGaleon 17 ~(Dom, writer for Futurism), "SpaceX Asks the U.S. To Fund a Public-Private Partnership for Deep Space Exploration," July 14, 2017, https://futurism.com/spacex-asks-the-u-s-to-fund-a-public-private-partnership-for-deep-space-exploration~~ TDI AND , and the best chance of success may come from pooling our resources. The CP turns the aff and prevents stifling of innovation – k2 climate tech.Van Burken 20 ~(Rebecca, technology policy analyst at Reason Foundation) "Biden Can Utilize Space Companies and Public-Private Partnerships," December 14, 2020 https://reason.org/commentary/biden-can-utilize-space-companies-and-public-private-partnerships/~~ TDI AND longer conflict for hiring – having the cp doesn’t mean less rocket enginerers - | 1/10/22 |
JF22 - CP - SSCTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Andrea Reier CP: Private entities appropriate space in the outer atmosphere through satellite launches must equip their technology with safety technologies in accordance with the Space Safety Coalition’s recommendations and best practices for collision avoidance – Wall 21:Wall, Mike. "Kessler Syndrome and the Space Debris Problem." Space.com, Space, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris. LHP GB + LHP PS AND the tech end up outpacing the problem, for all of our sakes. The Space Safety Coalition (SSC) is the best actor – they have academic consensus on space safety and has open membership to both public and private space operators – solves case - Space Safety Coalition 21:"Participation in the SSC Is Open to All Space Operators — Including Governmental or Intergovernmental Entities — Space Industry Associations, and Industry Stakeholders." Space Safety Coalition Expands Membership: Increased Attention, Global Coordination Needed to Protect Space as Critical Infrastructure, 22 Nov. 2021, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=58807. LHP GB + LHP PS AND including governmental or intergovernmental entities — space industry associations, and industry stakeholders. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - CP - SSC v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Faizaan Dossani CP: Private entities appropriate space in the outer atmosphere through satellite launches must equip their technology with safety technologies in accordance with the Space Safety Coalition’s recommendations and best practices for collision avoidance – Wall 21:Wall, Mike. "Kessler Syndrome and the Space Debris Problem." Space.com, Space, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris. LHP GB + LHP PS AND the tech end up outpacing the problem, for all of our sakes. The Space Safety Coalition (SSC) is the best actor – they have academic consensus on space safety and has open membership to both public and private space operators – solves case - Space Safety Coalition 21:"Participation in the SSC Is Open to All Space Operators — Including Governmental or Intergovernmental Entities — Space Industry Associations, and Industry Stakeholders." Space Safety Coalition Expands Membership: Increased Attention, Global Coordination Needed to Protect Space as Critical Infrastructure, 22 Nov. 2021, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=58807. LHP GB + LHP PS AND including governmental or intergovernmental entities — space industry associations, and industry stakeholders. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - CP - Weapons TestingTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: South Eugene Independent KS | Judge: Eric He CP: The Member Nations of the UN should draft, sign, and ratify a treaty banning the purposeful destruction of space objects. (anti-satellite weapons)This solves the aff better –A) Our plan solves non-aggressive weapons testing, which is a more probable impact (via space debris) than space war – Porras 19:Daniel Porras (2019) Anti-satellite warfare and the case for an alternative draft treaty for space security, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75:4, 142-147, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2019.1628470 LHP PS AND activities suitable for the long-term sustainability for all human space activities. B) China would honor the commitment.Cerny et. al 21~Michael B. Cerny has a Bachelor’s in International Relations from Emory University, Raphael J. Piliero is a Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan. David Bernstein has a Bachelors from Georgetown, Brandon W. Kelley is the Associate Director of Debate at Georgetown , May 2021,Space and Missile Wars: What Awaits, Chapter 5: Countering Co-Orbital ASATs: Warning Zones in GEO as a Lawful Trigger for Self-Defense https://npolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Space'and'Missile'Wars.pdf, 12-18-2021 amrita~ AND , a declining power with a desire to increase international engagement in orbit. C) Shared commitment to space regimes key to avoid Sino-US war.Weak Chinese space vastly increases risk of Sino-US war. This card is amazing – Fabian 22:Fabian, Christopher David. "A Neoclassical Realist's Analysis of Sino-U.S. Space Policy " The University of North Dakota. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2019. 13880083. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2581550024?pq-origsite=gscholarandfromopenview=true DOA: 2/20/22 AND build trust and transparency can direct both nations towards a globally optimal outcome. | 2/21/22 |
JF22 - DA - China Security DilemmaTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: South Eugene Independent KS | Judge: Eric He Chinese presence in space essential to prevent escalation and inevitable security conflict – Fabian 22:Fabian, Christopher David. "A Neoclassical Realist's Analysis of Sino-U.S. Space Policy " The University of North Dakota. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2019. 13880083. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2581550024?pq-origsite=gscholarandfromopenview=true DOA: 2/20/22 AND that U.S.-Soviet competition created persist in the 21st century. | 2/21/22 |
JF22 - DA - SBSPTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) is a megaconstellation, and it’s going to happen within 10 years in the squo. Aff banning private megaconstellations kills the necessary tech – David 21:David, Leonard. 11/03/21 Space Solar Power’s Time May Finally Be Coming."https://www.space.com/space-solar-power-research-advances LHP BT + LHP PS AND right answer is really clear: We need to just go do it." SBSP key to solve climate change – Katete 21 – the evidence is from today:Katete, Esthere. (December 17 2021) "Space-Based Solar Power: The Future Source of Energy?"https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2020/02/space-based-solar-power LHP BT + LHP PS AND be able to provide some key learnings for future improvements in the technology. Warming causes extinction - Xu 17:Yangyang Xu 17, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas AandM University; and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9/26/17, "Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 114, No. 39, p. 10315-10323 AND . Fig. 2 displays these three risk categorizations (vertical dashed lines). | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - DA - SBSP v2Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 3 | Opponent: Midlothian AC | Judge: Carlos Carrasco 1Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) is a megaconstellation, and it’s going to happen within 10 years in the squo. Aff banning private megaconstellations kills the necessary tech – David 21:David, Leonard. 11/03/21 Space Solar Power’s Time May Finally Be Coming."https://www.space.com/space-solar-power-research-advances LHP BT + LHP PS AND right answer is really clear: We need to just go do it." SBSP key to solve climate change – Katete 21 :Katete, Esthere. (December 17 2021) "Space-Based Solar Power: The Future Source of Energy?"https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2020/02/space-based-solar-power LHP BT + LHP PS AND be able to provide some key learnings for future improvements in the technology. Warming causes extinction - Xu 17:Yangyang Xu 17, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas AandM University; and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9/26/17, "Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 114, No. 39, p. 10315-10323 AND . Fig. 2 displays these three risk categorizations (vertical dashed lines). | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - DA - XiTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Andrea Reier Xi’s regime is stable now, but its success depends on strong growth and private sector development.Mitter and Johnson 21 ~Rana Mitter and Elsbeth Johnson, Rana Mitter is a professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford. Elsbeth Johnson, formerly the strategy director for Prudential PLC’s Asian business, is a senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of SystemShift, a consulting firm. May-June 2021, "What the West Gets Wrong About China," Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND University thanks to social mobility and the party’s significant investment in scientific research. Xi has committed to the commercial space industry as the linchpin of China’s rise – the plan is seen as a complete 180Patel 21 ~Neel V. Patel, Neel is a space reporter for MIT Technology Review. 1-21-2021, "China’s surging private space industry is out to challenge the US," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/ accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND for the commercial space sector as it tries to expand," he says. Shifts in regime perception threatens CCP’s legitimacy from nationalist hardlinersWeiss 19 Jessica Weiss 1-29-2019 "Authoritarian Audiences, Rhetoric, and Propaganda in International Crises: Evidence from China" http://www.jessicachenweiss.com/uploads/3/0/6/3/30636001/19-01-24-elite-statements-isq-ca.pdf (Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University)Elmer AND to it more directly than even the U.S. government."11 Xi will launch diversionary war to domestic backlash – escalates in multiple hotspotsNorris 17, William J. Geostrategic Implications of China’s Twin Economic Challenges. CFR Discussion Paper, 2017. (Associate professor of Chinese foreign and security policy at Texas AandM University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service)Elmer AND resource is directed shifts away from industrial and export production toward domestic consumption. US–China war goes nuclear – crisis mis-management ensures conventional escalation - extinctionKulacki 20 ~Dr. Gregory Kulacki focuses on cross-cultural communication between the United States and China on nuclear and space arms control and is the China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2020. Would China Use Nuclear Weapons First In A War With The United States?, Thediplomat.com, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/would-china-use-nuclear-weapons-first-in-a-war-with-the-united-states/~~ srey AND during a military crisis, but it would make one far less likely. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - DA - Xi v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Xi’s regime is stable now, but its success depends on strong growth and private sector development.Mitter and Johnson 21 ~Rana Mitter and Elsbeth Johnson, Rana Mitter is a professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford. Elsbeth Johnson, formerly the strategy director for Prudential PLC’s Asian business, is a senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of SystemShift, a consulting firm. May-June 2021, "What the West Gets Wrong About China," Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND University thanks to social mobility and the party’s significant investment in scientific research. Xi has committed to the commercial space industry as the linchpin of China’s rise – the plan is seen as a complete 180Patel 21 ~Neel V. Patel, Neel is a space reporter for MIT Technology Review. 1-21-2021, "China’s surging private space industry is out to challenge the US," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/ accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND for the commercial space sector as it tries to expand," he says. Shifts in regime perception threatens CCP’s legitimacy from nationalist hardlinersWeiss 19 Jessica Weiss 1-29-2019 "Authoritarian Audiences, Rhetoric, and Propaganda in International Crises: Evidence from China" http://www.jessicachenweiss.com/uploads/3/0/6/3/30636001/19-01-24-elite-statements-isq-ca.pdf (Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University)Elmer AND to it more directly than even the U.S. government."11 Xi will launch diversionary war to domestic backlash – escalates in multiple hotspotsNorris 17, William J. Geostrategic Implications of China’s Twin Economic Challenges. CFR Discussion Paper, 2017. (Associate professor of Chinese foreign and security policy at Texas AandM University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service)Elmer AND resource is directed shifts away from industrial and export production toward domestic consumption. US–China war goes nuclear – crisis mis-management ensures conventional escalation - extinctionKulacki 20 ~Dr. Gregory Kulacki focuses on cross-cultural communication between the United States and China on nuclear and space arms control and is the China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2020. Would China Use Nuclear Weapons First In A War With The United States?, Thediplomat.com, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/would-china-use-nuclear-weapons-first-in-a-war-with-the-united-states/~~ srey AND during a military crisis, but it would make one far less likely. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - DA - Xi v3Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 3 | Opponent: Midlothian AC | Judge: Carlos Carrasco Xi’s regime is stable now, but its success depends on strong growth and private sector development.Mitter and Johnson 21 ~Rana Mitter and Elsbeth Johnson, Rana Mitter is a professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford. Elsbeth Johnson, formerly the strategy director for Prudential PLC’s Asian business, is a senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of SystemShift, a consulting firm. May-June 2021, "What the West Gets Wrong About China," Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND University thanks to social mobility and the party’s significant investment in scientific research. Xi has committed to the commercial space industry as the linchpin of China’s rise – the plan is seen as a complete 180Patel 21 ~Neel V. Patel, Neel is a space reporter for MIT Technology Review. 1-21-2021, "China’s surging private space industry is out to challenge the US," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/ accessed 12/14/21~ Adam AND for the commercial space sector as it tries to expand," he says. Shifts in regime perception threatens CCP’s legitimacy from nationalist hardlinersWeiss 19 Jessica Weiss 1-29-2019 "Authoritarian Audiences, Rhetoric, and Propaganda in International Crises: Evidence from China" http://www.jessicachenweiss.com/uploads/3/0/6/3/30636001/19-01-24-elite-statements-isq-ca.pdf (Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University)Elmer AND to it more directly than even the U.S. government."11 Xi will launch diversionary war to domestic backlash – escalates in multiple hotspotsNorris 17, William J. Geostrategic Implications of China’s Twin Economic Challenges. CFR Discussion Paper, 2017. (Associate professor of Chinese foreign and security policy at Texas AandM University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service)Elmer AND resource is directed shifts away from industrial and export production toward domestic consumption. ====US–China war goes nuclear – crisis mis-management ensures conventional escalation - extinction==== AND during a military crisis, but it would make one far less likely. | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - Hijack - LibertarianismTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman That justifies a minimalist libertarian state – Otteson 09James R. Otteson, 2009, "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3., Winter 2009, available at https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir'13'03'4'otteson.pdf LHP PS Vote neg –1~ Injustice requires someone wronged, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any entity’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser 05:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV 2~ Submitting to international limits on power is a contradiction in will – it weakens the republic and has no binding force.Waltz ’62 (Waltz, Kenneth N. "Kant, Liberalism, and War." The American Political Science Review 56, no. 2 (1962): 331-40. doi:10.2307/1952369.) 3~ The aff violates the rights of private entities – a~ no one owns space and can exclude them on legitimate grounds, and they want to go to space so stopping them is a contradiction in will b~ private entities expend and have expended resources to claim things in space like making rockets or rocket fuel, preventing that is a violation of property rights since you are not allowing them to use what they own as they want | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - K - DeanTournament: Sunvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: Delon Fuller 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 – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. The alternative is the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon – only our methodology can fight capitalism, anything else allows it to take over co-opting any movement – Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND in, welcoming the new comrade into relations irreducible to their broader setting. The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - K - Settler ColonialismTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: James Stuckert - Claudia Ribera - Dylan Sutton The evocation of common heritage of "mankind" always excludes those who are the constitutive excluded — mechanisms like the Moon treaty purport to be for the good of common humanity, but they in fact just reinforce the nation-state’s ability to make sovereign decisions over space – Cornum 18:Cornum, Lou. "Event Horizon." Real Life, 12 Mar. 2018, https://reallifemag.com/event-horizon/. AND givens, the most persistent and damning of them being contact as conquest. State space exploration destroys the hope for indigenous and afro futurism, subsuming space with ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬'''''', Cornum 15.Cornum, Lou. "The Space Ndn's Star Map." The New Inquiry, 26 Jan. 2015, https://thenewinquiry.com/the-space-ndns-star-map/. AND the space NDN reveals the myriad ways of relating to land beyond property. Not only does the aff plan do nothing, it legitimates the fiction that the actions of a coopted settler-colonial state are in fact for the people, while the state continues to make the private sector do its dirty work on command. Klinger 18Klinger, J. M. (2018). Rare earth frontiers: From terrestrial subsoils to lunar landscapes. Cornell University Press. AND the end of the Cold War (United States House of Representatives 1998). The only way to solve climate change is through anti-racist struggle because climate change is the result of colonialism – they can never solve the root cause - Yeampierre 20:Gardiner, Beth, et al. "Unequal Impact: The Deep Links Between Racism and Climate Change." Yale E360, 9 June 2020, e360.yale.edu/features/unequal-impact-the-deep-links-between-inequality-and-climate-change. LHPBT AND one part of the problem without the other, because it’s so systemic. The alt is to refuse the fantasy of the 1AC. Refusal is not just a "no," but a generative process that challenges sanctioned modes of protocol and decorum in the universityKing 3 (Tiffany, Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at the Georgia State University "Humans Involved: Lurking in the Lines of Posthumanist Flight" Critical Ethnic Studies 3, No. 1, pp. 163-170) NIJ AND Indigenous people have never been fully folded into the category of the human. ROB is to vote for the debater with the best grammar for resisting conquest.Colonialism functions in education through rhetorical imperialism, decolonial framing and discourse is key.Grande, Sandy 2015: Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought, Tenth Anniversary Edition . United States of America. Rowman and Littlefield Publisher Inc. (pp 55-56). Sandy Grande is associate professor and Chair of the Education Department at Connecticut College. Her research interfaces critical Indigenous theories with the concerns of education. In addition to Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. (HTE) AND it is and as it should be" (Alfred 1999, 132). | 2/1/22 |
JF22 - K - Space AnarchismTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cooper City NR | Judge: Amadea Datel Elon Musk is the first step toward DIY space – state programs hinder this by making space exploration oriented against DIY and towards capital-extensivity – Carson 19:Carson, Kevin. 8th Feb 2019. "Ephemeralization for Post-Capitalist Space Exploration." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-ephemeralization-for-post-capitalist-space-exploration AND luck, maybe it won’t lie with Elon Musk for much longer either. Anarchist revolutions are fragile; they need space apart, space to grow strong – and the process of reading the kritik is one of creating revolutionary spaces in literal, actual space – Bevensee:Bevensee, Emmi. No Date. "Anarchists Need Space Because We’re Fighting in All Directions." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emmi-bevensee-anarchists-need-space-because-we-re-fighting-in-all-directions AND the authoritarians and space capitalists andprevent them from expanding their sphere of havoc? The alternative is an anarchist space program making us space pirates. Revolution on earth is doomed. We don’t need to solve—we need to dream.– Debord 20:Debord, Syzygy. 2020 "Another Galaxy for Another Life." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/syzygy-debord-another-galaxy-for-another-life AND ! We have a world to lose, but a universe to gain! The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory and space is the best horizon of all, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 12/18/21 |
JF22 - K - Space Anarchism v2Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 5 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage 1Private space appropriation gives the blueprint to anarchists/is anarchist appropriation – Kevin 19:Carson, Kevin. 8th Feb 2019. "Ephemeralization for Post-Capitalist Space Exploration." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-ephemeralization-for-post-capitalist-space-exploration LHP AB AND luck, maybe it won’t lie with Elon Musk for much longer either. There is a possibility of optimistic understanding of the state one in which we can escape violence, but the aff dooms us towards being stuck within the violent system – previous liberation strategies like afro and indigenous futurism require the alternative - Cornum 15:https://thenewinquiry.com/the-space-ndns-star-map/ AND the space NDN reveals the myriad ways of relating to land beyond property. Anarchist revolutions are fragile; they need space apart, space to grow strong – and the process of reading the kritik is one of creating revolutionary spaces, Bevensee:Bevensee, Emmi. No Date. "Anarchists Need Space Because We’re Fighting in All Directions." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emmi-bevensee-anarchists-need-space-because-we-re-fighting-in-all-directions AND . We defend these spaces from all sides using a variety of means. The alternative is an anarchist space program – anarchists leave the Earth to establish new colonies free from state capitalist exploitation. The aff makes this impossible by banning private appropriation and re-entrenching the power of the state – the alt occurs outside the realm of the state. Revolution on earth is doomed. DebordDebord, Syzygy. 2020 "Another Galaxy for Another Life." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/syzygy-debord-another-galaxy-for-another-life AND ! We have a world to lose, but a universe to gain! The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory and space is the best horizon of all, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - K - Space Anarchism v3Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Quinn Hughes Private space appropriation gives the blueprint to anarchists/is anarchist appropriation – Carson 19:Carson, Kevin. 8th Feb 2019. "Ephemeralization for Post-Capitalist Space Exploration." https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-ephemeralization-for-post-capitalist-space-exploration LHP AB AND luck, maybe it won’t lie with Elon Musk for much longer either.
| 2/18/22 |
JF22 - NC - KantTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1FrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason.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 a minimalist libertarian state – Otteson 09James R. Otteson, 2009, “Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism,” The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3., Winter 2009, available at https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir'13'03'4'otteson.pdf LHP PS ContentionInjustice requires someone wronged, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any entity’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser 05:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION,” 2005 LHP AV | 1/28/22 |
JF22 - NC - Kant v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin The meta-ethic is practical reason.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 a minimalist libertarian state – Otteson 09James R. Otteson, 2009, "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3., Winter 2009, available at https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir'13'03'4'otteson.pdf LHP PS AND libertarianism’s limitations. Thus, we might aptly call his position constrained libertarianism. Prefer additionally,1~ 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. 2~ Agency requires deliberation to choose what actions to take which creates a practical identity identical for every agent. It is the only form of ontology that can account for every individual, making it the only identity that can create obligations.Christine M. Korsgaard, 1992 AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. Impacts: A~ Since obligations arise from a universal identity, they must be the same for all, B~ hijacks any role of the judge since judging is an identity contained within the practical oneVote neg – I contend that the resolution i.e. the approprartion of outer space by private entities is unjust1~ Injustice requires someone wronged, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any entity’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser 05:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - NC - Kant v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin The meta-ethic is practical reason.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 a minimalist libertarian state – Otteson 09James R. Otteson, 2009, "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3., Winter 2009, available at https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir'13'03'4'otteson.pdf LHP PS AND libertarianism’s limitations. Thus, we might aptly call his position constrained libertarianism. Prefer additionally,1~ 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. 2~ Agency requires deliberation to choose what actions to take which creates a practical identity identical for every agent. It is the only form of ontology that can account for every individual, making it the only identity that can create obligations.Christine M. Korsgaard, 1992 AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. Impacts: A~ Since obligations arise from a universal identity, they must be the same for all, B~ hijacks any role of the judge since judging is an identity contained within the practical oneVote neg – I contend that the resolution i.e. the approprartion of outer space by private entities is unjust1~ Injustice requires someone wronged, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any entity’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser 05:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - NC - LibertarianismTournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Jacob Palmer In setting an end, every agent must recognize freedom as a necessary good, 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. Prefer –A~ performativity – argumentation requires the assumption that freedom is good – else agents would be unable to make argumentsB~ prerequisite – condoning any action requires condoning the freedom required to take that action – so my theory’s a prerequisite to theirs and my offense acts as a side-constraint to your framework.C~ culpability – absent a conception of free will, people can just claim they were acting of desires they can’t control.D~ probability – it’s logically contradictory to deny my framework because that would use freedom to do so. Therefore, it’s impossible for my framework to be falseThe universality of freedom justifies a libertarian state. Otteson 09Otteson 09 brackets in original James R. Otteson (professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism" The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter 2009 AND in the absence of invasions or threats of invasions, it is inactive. Thus, the standard is consistency with a libertarian state.Impact calc – Aggregation fails – there is no one for whom aggregate good is good-for. Korsgaard:Christine Korsgaard, "The Origin of the Good and Our Animal Nature" Harvard, n.d. RE AND , is better captured by the third theory I am about to describe. Prefer –1~ Coherence – anything else is either repugnant or infinitely regressive, Boaz 15 bracketed for glang:David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, "The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom", 2/10/15, https://books.google.com/books/about/The'Libertarian'Mind.html?id=zs8NBAAAQBAJ. LHP AV *Bracketed for gendered language* AND I rather like Jefferson’s simple declaration: Natural rights are self-evident. ContentionInjustice requires someone wronged, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any entity’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser 05:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 | 1/10/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v2Tournament: FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | Round: 1 | Opponent: 5 Reha Patel | Judge: 2 Jonathan Conway State Quals R11NFWI negate the resolution resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.Flowing directly from the use of the word ‘unjust’ in the resolution, my value is justice.Accordingly, my value criterion is preserving freedom by protecting individual negative rights. To clarify, a positive right is claiming others must provide you with something, while a negative right is claiming others must not take what you have. There are (2 or 3) major reasons to prefer it:1~ Only embracing the negative right can cohere with important conceptions of self-ownership key to morality. This card also explains positive and negative rights. Philosophy Professor Edward Feser SummarizesEdward Feser ~Philosophy professor at Loyola~, On Nozick by Eric Mack, 2004, p. 36-7, Volume 8, Issue 4 Scopa AND with one another, and thus with the notion that rights are inviolable. 2~ People are not merely pawns of society, but real people with goals, dreams, and interests. It’s simply unethical to use one human against their will for the benefit of others. Nozick, a famous philosopher and former Harvard Professor, writes,Nozick 74, Robert Nozick, ~American political philosopher, former professor at Harvard University~, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974. AND all a state or government that claims his allegiance (as other individuals do 3~ People have varying passions and conceptions of a good life that stems from individuality and freedom. Only by having the state embrace my framework of protecting individual rights can we allow everyone to pursue their passions without arbitrarily valuing certain views. Eric Mack writes:Eric Mack, June 15, 2018, "Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/~~#FraDisPro LHP AV AND chosen communities will be internally homogeneous with heterogeneity existing only across these communities.) OffenseMy sole contention is that the initial acquisition of unowned property cannot be unjust, and therefore the aff’s claim that the acquisition of space is unjust is false.Violating freedom through property rights requires someone who owns the property in the first place, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any individual’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser explains:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV AND have a property right. It involves specifying what counts as original appropriation. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v3Tournament: FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | Round: 3 | Opponent: 6 Lavanya Ravi | Judge: 8 Enrique Alberti 1NFWI negate the resolution resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.Flowing directly from the use of the word ‘unjust’ in the resolution, my value is justice.Accordingly, my value criterion is preserving freedom by protecting individual negative rights. To clarify, a positive right is claiming others must provide you with something, while a negative right is claiming others must not take what you have. There are (2 or 3) major reasons to prefer it:1~ Only embracing the negative right can cohere with important conceptions of self-ownership key to morality. This card also explains positive and negative rights. Philosophy Professor Edward Feser SummarizesEdward Feser ~Philosophy professor at Loyola~, On Nozick by Eric Mack, 2004, p. 36-7, Volume 8, Issue 4 Scopa AND with one another, and thus with the notion that rights are inviolable. 2~ People are not merely pawns of society, but real people with goals, dreams, and interests. It’s simply unethical to use one human against their will for the benefit of others. Nozick, a famous philosopher and former Harvard Professor, writes,Nozick 74, Robert Nozick, ~American political philosopher, former professor at Harvard University~, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974. AND all a state or government that claims his allegiance (as other individuals do 3~ People have varying passions and conceptions of a good life that stems from individuality and freedom. Only by having the state embrace my framework of protecting individual rights can we allow everyone to pursue their passions without arbitrarily valuing certain views. Eric Mack writes:Eric Mack, June 15, 2018, "Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/~~#FraDisPro LHP AV AND chosen communities will be internally homogeneous with heterogeneity existing only across these communities.) OffenseMy sole contention is that the initial acquisition of unowned property cannot be unjust, and therefore the aff’s claim that the acquisition of space is unjust is false.Violating freedom through property rights requires someone who owns the property in the first place, but initial acquisition doesn’t violate any individual’s rights– therefore, private appropriation of outer space cannot be unjust, Feser explains:Edward Feser, ~Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College~ "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 2005 LHP AV AND have a property right. It involves specifying what counts as original appropriation. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - NC - P PTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Permissibility negates – A~ Semantics - unjust is defined as morally prohibited or bad which means permissibility is definitionally negative ground as proving the affirmative would require proving a prohibition which permissibility denies – B~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensatePresumption negates – A~ We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not mean it is assumed to be true – B~ Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - NC - P PTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Permissibility negates – A~ Semantics - unjust is defined as morally prohibited or bad which means permissibility is definitionally negative ground as proving the affirmative would require proving a prohibition which permissibility denies – B~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensatePresumption negates – A~ We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not mean it is assumed to be true – B~ Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways. | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - NC - SkepticismTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran Permissibility Negates:1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true.B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways.Skepticism is true and negates:1~ Concept Skep – there are 2 forms of knowledge – deductive, knowledge from logical proofs, and empirical, knowledge from experience. However, all knowledge is grouped into two concepts – universals or particulars. The concept "I am Prateek" is particular because there is only one me, but "bears are white" is universal because it applies to all theoretical bears. Universal knowledge is epistemically inaccessible because you must prove a negative existential which requires omniscience to prove. For the concept, "bears are white" to be true, I must be certain there are no brown bears, as that would disprove my claim. That negates because it’s impossible to prove a universal concept like the resolution i.e., appropriation is bad. At best, they prove this means particularism is true, which still means you negate because the aff isn’t particular.2~ Zeno’s Paradox – assume we are starting at any position A and want to get to position Z. In order to move from position A to Z we must cross halfway point position B, but in order to get to position B, we must cross the halfway point in between A and B, being C, and so on until infinity. Two impacts: a~ movement is theoretically illogical thus the plan does nothing means you vote negative on presumption b~ empirical conjectures result in external world skep – disproving logical premises with material examples justifies a disconnect between logic and the physical. Proving motion possible in the physical proves a rejection of the physical given the illogicality of the example, meaning we could be deceived and its not verifiable.3~ Cartesian Skep – truth requires one to be absolutely certain about a statement or else the statement cannot be held true. For example, saying all apples are red requires certainty that no apples are blue or else the statement is an assumption. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of a deceptive demon who deceives all in their beliefs while simultaneously assuring ourselves that we are right. Thus, one can never prove that the external world exists because our knowledge of it may always be incorrect. This also proves solipsism is true as we can only be sure of our own mind and consciousness, but we can never verify that of the other. | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - T - ASPECTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: James Stuckert - Claudia Ribera - Dylan Sutton Interpretation: If the affirmative garners offense off of the consequences of a fiated plan then, the affirmative must defend a governmental actor that bans private appropriation. To clarify, they can’t just defend private entities stop appropriating.1—-Resolved.Merriam Webster '18 (Merriam Webster; 2018 Edition; Online dictionary and legal resource; Merriam Webster, "resolve," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve; RP)
2—-Unjust.Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Vote neg:1~ Precision - A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passing –B~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and educational –C~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution –D~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Ground – circumvention, politics, process CPs, - we loose all possible DA’s of how the plan is actually implemented or works, which means the negative can never generate offense to the plan if it o/w its core generics agaisnt a super tiny plan aff which they read3~ Utopian Fiat – the aff inherency means private entities want to obviously appropriate, but they don’t explain at all why they would stop – they don’t get magical access to that – impacts – A~ kills real world and policymaking education – B~ topic literature – no one argues against it because it is utopian which kills negative ground and engagementFairness is a voter – it’s intrinsic to any competitive activityEducation’s a voter – it’s why schools fund debateCompeting interpretations—it tells the negative what they do and do not have to prepare for. Reasonability is arbitrary and unpredictable, inviting a race to the bottom and we’ll win it links to our offenset this is not frivolous theory, and something where optimal norms matter.Drop the debater to deter future abuse and because the 2N doesn’t get new disads to whole rez so it’s permanently skewed.No RVIs – a~ illogical – you can’t say I’m fair vote for me, which is a metaconstraint on all argumentation B~ baiting – people will be abusive to bait out theory and then win on the rvi, which invites infinite abuse that outweighs on magnitude | 2/1/22 |
JF22 - T - Cant Defend Private Entities Appropriate All of SpaceTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Joshua Porter Interepretation: The affirmative must not defend that private entities should appropriate all of space"Appropriation" means to make something private property, OED 89Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (1989). "Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space, TRAPP 13TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ AND the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219 Private entity" is defined by Cornell Law:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/1501~~#a AND or nonprofit entity, including an officer, employee, or agent thereof. Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary.Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/ Elmer Vote neg1~ ground – extempted2~ fiat abuse – extempted~1~ Fairness o/w - a~ testing – you can’t evaluate their args because the round was skewed – if they have 10 minutes to win their aff or fairness bad and I have 1 for the opposite they will win – proves fairness is good even under their method of b~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedure c~ Ballot Proximity – voting aff wont solve all of but its unique to being able to solve fairness ~d~ all your arguments assume they will evaluated by the judge fairly, saying unfairness good is just saying to not evaluate your args~2~ Vote on education – ~a~ it’s the only terminal impact to debate that matters after the round o/w on portability ~b~ its uniquely key to being able to challenge cap - the only way to know how and what we should be doing~3~ Prefer competing interpretations, reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention which can moot the entirety of 1ac or 1nc speeches.~4~ Drop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the same~5~ No RVI – a~ logic – I’m fair vote for me makes no sense and outweighs because all args must be logical, b~ baiting – rvis incentivize abuse to win on theory | 2/20/22 |
JF22 - T - FiatTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Maximilian Tran Interpretation: The affirmative must not defend a non-status quo policy option. To clarify, the affirmative may not fiat ''''' (their advocacy)Violation: They do (explain)Vote neg:1~ Precision – the resolution doesn’t entail an actor nor does it an action – they are definitionally not topical or even a subset of the resolution – vote them down –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passing –B~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and educational –C~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution –D~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Limits – they explode them – they are super Extra T and justify an infinite possible number of affirmatives and different actors – none of which are part of the resolution which means there is no prediction ground. Multiple Impacts – A~ Stable Ground – they deck neg preparation ability and impose an infinitely reciprocal research burden on the negative to have to guess the infinite policy options and possible permutations and to cut specific disads to those - B~ Predictability – no actor or action means its impossible to have a way to predict affs on this topic which decks quality engagement and education – C~ Infinite Abuse – being non-topical justifies picking a trivially true aff which means they always win3~ TVA – don’t defend an action and use ideal theory to explain why appropriation is bad - That’s better – it promotes in-depth philosophical clash over law that’s constitutive to LDFairness first – a~ it’s a procedural constraint – b~ hackNo RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentived from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - you dont win for meeting ur burden of being fair - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Drop the debater –A~ Epistemic Skew - I was structurally precluded from engaging in substance given the time spent reading the shell and the abuse itself, means you can’t truly evaluate substance because they are always aheadB~ Illogical – can’t DTA b/c the shell indicts their advocacyC~ Deter’s future abuseCompeting interps –A~ reasonability’s arbitrary and forces judge intervention especially with 2ar recontextualizations to always sound like the more reasonable debaterB~ norm setting - we find the best possible norms through robust theory debates | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - T - Fiat v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murphy IndependentPlano East AW | Judge: TJ Maher Interpretation: The affirmative must not defend a non-status quo policy option. To clarify, the affirmative may not fiat ''''' (their advocacy)Violation: They do (explain)Vote neg:1~ Precision – the resolution doesn’t entail an actor nor does it an action – they are definitionally not topical or even a subset of the resolution – vote them down –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passing –B~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and educational –C~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution –D~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Limits – they explode them – they are super Extra T and justify an infinite possible number of affirmatives and different actors – none of which are part of the resolution which means there is no prediction ground. Multiple Impacts – A~ Stable Ground – they deck neg preparation ability and impose an infinitely reciprocal research burden on the negative to have to guess the infinite policy options and possible permutations and to cut specific disads to those - B~ Predictability – no actor or action means its impossible to have a way to predict affs on this topic which decks quality engagement and education – C~ Infinite Abuse – being non-topical justifies picking a trivially true aff which means they always win3~ TVA – don’t defend an action and use ideal theory to explain why appropriation is bad - That’s better – it promotes in-depth philosophical clash over law that’s constitutive to LD | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - T - Must Defend TopicTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Houston Memorial SC | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz Interpretation- The affirmative must defend resolved: "The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust" – To clarifty, the affirmative must only garner and derive offense of off the truth of the resolutionViolation: They don’t (elaborate)Vote neg:~1~ Clash – I don’t have prep specific to their non-T aff to generate in depth clash – they can leverage their specific knowledge of their aff to always frame out generics and use their extensive frontlines to crush any pre round prep I generated, magnified by the fact that I can only prep the rez o/w ~a~ Education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, B~ Advocacy Skills - turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change in the real world is by being able to make advocacies and engage in them– allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and forces good engagementReject clash bad – they purposely read their aff in a competitive activity that assumes clash~2~ Limits – absent the rez the aff could be anything which makes infinite affs. That destroys fairness – their abuse is supercharged by two things. A~ they literally have infinite prep since the 2-month topic reset doesn’t apply and B~ they can cherry pick their aff to be something trivially true like racism bad which I can’t substantively deny.Framing issues:~1~ Fairness o/w - a~ testing – you can’t evaluate their args because the round was skewed – if they have 10 minutes to win their aff or fairness bad and I have 1 for the opposite they will win – proves fairness is good even under their method of (insert their ROB thing) b~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedure c~ Ballot Proximity – voting aff wont solve all of (insert what they want to solve), but its unique to being able to solve fairness ~d~ all your arguments assume they will evaluated by the judge fairly, saying unfairness good is just saying to not evaluate your args~2~ Vote on education – ~a~ it’s the only terminal impact to debate that matters after the round o/w on portability ~b~ its uniquely key to being able to challenge (insert what they want to solve) it’s the only way to know how and what we should be doing~3~ Prefer competing interpretations, reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention which can moot the entirety of 1ac or 1nc speeches.~4~ Drop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the same~5~ No RVI – a~ logic – I’m fair vote for me makes no sense and outweighs because all args must be logical, b~ baiting – rvis incentivize abuse to win on theory6~ Can’t weigh case – A~ Time Skew – B~7~ SSD solves | 1/16/22 |
JF22 - T - Outer SpaceTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Interpretation: The affirmative may not defend action on celestial bodies. To clarify, if the affirmative does defend an action, it must only be within outer-space.Merriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS That outweighs on text – it relates to the physical space outside the atmosphere not land on other planets themselves.Merriam-Webster defines Celestial Bodies as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celestial20body LHP PS And, Toppr defines them as:toppr.com/guides/physics/stars-and-solar-system/celestial-bodies LHP PS AND will give the necessary details about the celestial bodies in a simple manner. It’s actively confusing and bad for international law to conflate outer space and celestial bodies – Cheng 2k:Cheng, Bin. "Properly speaking, only celestial bodies have been reserved for use exclusively for peaceful (non-military) purposes, but not outer void space." International Law Studies 75.1 (2000): 21. LHP BT + LHP PS AND It has become nameless, causing a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Outweighs –A~ Policy Freeze – they actively make it impossible for policymakers to determine what to doB~ Common usage – every treaty makes an explicit distinction between them by either saying outer space or/and celestial bodies which demonstrates an understood legal difference engrained within law.C~ Pragmatics – Cheng 99:Cheng, Bin. "Introducing a New Term to Space Law." The Korean Journal of Air and Space Law and Policy 11 (1999): 321-327. LHP BT + LHP PS AND because of the lack of a term to describe this vast empty space. Violation: They defend – action on lunar sitesVote neg:1~ Precision - they are definitionally not topical or even a subset of the resolution – vote them down –A~ Stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passing –B~ Internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and educational –C~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution –2~ Limits – they explode them – multiple warrants – A~ their model justifies an infinite possibility of affs as space is extremely unexplored which is extremely unpredictable and impossible for negs to have prep to – B~ justifies reading any aff because Earth is a celestial body, and if celestial bodies and space are the same Earth is included, which means the aff can read any action on Earth which kills quality engagement and negative ground. That also justifies affs reading trivially true affs | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - T - Outer SpaceTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Sam Anderson - James Stuckert - Daniel Shatzkin Interpretation: The affirmative may not defend action on celestial bodies. To clarify, if the affirmative does defend an action, it must only be within outer-space.Merriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS That outweighs on text – it relates to the physical space outside the atmosphere not land on other planets themselves.Merriam-Webster defines Celestial Bodies as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celestial20body LHP PS And, Toppr defines them as:toppr.com/guides/physics/stars-and-solar-system/celestial-bodies LHP PS AND will give the necessary details about the celestial bodies in a simple manner. It’s actively confusing and bad for international law to conflate outer space and celestial bodies – Cheng 2k:Cheng, Bin. "Properly speaking, only celestial bodies have been reserved for use exclusively for peaceful (non-military) purposes, but not outer void space." International Law Studies 75.1 (2000): 21. LHP BT + LHP PS AND It has become nameless, causing a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Outweighs –A~ Policy Freeze – they actively make it impossible for policymakers to determine what to doB~ Common usage – every treaty makes an explicit distinction between them by either saying outer space or/and celestial bodies which demonstrates an understood legal difference engrained within law.C~ Pragmatics – Cheng 99:Cheng, Bin. "Introducing a New Term to Space Law." The Korean Journal of Air and Space Law and Policy 11 (1999): 321-327. LHP BT + LHP PS AND because of the lack of a term to describe this vast empty space. Violation: They defend – action on lunar sitesVote neg:1~ Precision - they are definitionally not topical or even a subset of the resolution – vote them down –A~ Stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passing –B~ Internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and educational –C~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution –2~ Limits – they explode them – multiple warrants – A~ their model justifies an infinite possibility of affs as space is extremely unexplored which is extremely unpredictable and impossible for negs to have prep to – B~ justifies reading any aff because Earth is a celestial body, and if celestial bodies and space are the same Earth is included, which means the aff can read any action on Earth which kills quality engagement and negative ground. That also justifies affs reading trivially true affs | 2/22/22 |
JF22 - T - PolicyTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Interp: The AFF must defend policy action in a plan text in the 1AC."Resolved:" the appropriation of outer space by private entities is "unjust" entails policy action:1—-Resolved.Parcher 1 ~Jeff; former debate coach at Georgetown; Feb 26, 2001; https://web.archive.org/web/20020929065555/http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html~~ brett AND question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. 2—-Unjust.Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Violation: their plan text says" I don’t defend implementation of a policy or an action"Prefer:1—-Ground—-absent meeting precise words in the res, we lose all the pre-round prep we did around the resolution, killing neg ground.2—-Vagueness—-debates inevitably involve the AFF defending something, but only our interp lets them to clearly define that from the start. Their model leads to late-breaking debates that destroy ground, for example we won’t know if asteroid mining or space exploration are offense until the 1AR, which skews neg prep.3—-Topic ed—-specific policies teaches lets us go deep into the topic, uniquely important given the evolving character of space law. outweighs bc we only have 2 month topics, and phil ed is solved by free textbooks.CI bc reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge interventionDTD to deter future abuseNo RVIs: 1~ illogical, you shouldn’t win for being topical, 2~ good theory debaters will read abusive positions to bait theory and dump on an RVI, 3~ trades off with substance since we can’t kick out of TNeg theory first because AFF abuse made it impossible to engage so any neg abuse was to get back in the game. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - T - Policy v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mahtomedi SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman "Resolved:" the appropriation of outer space by private entities is "unjust" entails policy action:1—-Resolved.Merriam Webster '18 (Merriam Webster; 2018 Edition; Online dictionary and legal resource; Merriam Webster, "resolve," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve; RP)
2—-Unjust.Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Violation: There’s no plan, they defend the res as a general rule.Prefer:1—-Vagueness—-debates inevitably involve the AFF defending something, but only our interp forces that to be clearly defined that from the start. Their model leads to late-breaking debates that destroy ground, for example we won’t know if asteroid mining or space exploration are offense until the 1AR, which skews neg prep.2—-Topic ed—-specific policies teaches lets us go deep into the topic, uniquely important given the evolving character of space law – outweighs bc we only have 2 month topics, and phil ed is solved by free textbooks – space law is inseparable from actual policy actions. | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - Theory - InherencyTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: James Stuckert - Claudia Ribera - Dylan Sutton Interpretation: The affirmative can’t defend a plan that is already in law. To clarify, the aff must defend a shift from the status quoThe US is the only nation that’s been to the moon and they already have this law – Lupsha 21:https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/new-law-regarding-human-heritage-in-space-protects-lunar-artifacts/~~#:~~:text=According20to20CNN2C20historical20markers,law2CE2809D20the20article20said. AND -known to all generations of Americans. Here’s where it all started. Guess what, you’re even more inherent: it’s also in the Artemis accords, signed by a bunch of spacefaring nations – Nasa:https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis'plan-20200921.pdf Vote neg:1~ Presumption –2~ Shiftiness – incentivized to shift – impacts – a~ ground – b~ eval debate after 1n3~ Topic ed – a~ neg ground – b~ research skills | 2/1/22 |
JF22 - Theory - Must Have Solvency AdvocateTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: South Eugene Independent KS | Judge: Eric He Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than, "The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust," then the affirmative must have a solvency advocate clearly delineated in the text of the 1AC that advocates the plan is a good idea and is normal meansViolation: They don’tVote neg:1~ Fairness – the shell is a litmus to determine whether the aff is faira) Limits – there are infinite things you could defend outside the exact text of the resolution which pushes you to the limits of contestable arguments, even if your topic is better, our model makes it so only affirmatives within the scope of topic literature can find. Our interp narrows out trivially true aff’s and ensure there is possible contestation that o/w on predictabilityb) Shiftiness-Having a solvency advocate helps us conceptualize what their advocacy is and how it’s implemented. Intentionally ambiguous affirmatives we don’t know much about can’t spike out of DA’s and CP’s if they have an advocate that delineates these things.DTDFairnessNo RVICompeting Interps | 2/21/22 |
JF22 - Theory - Must Spec AppropriationTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison JP | Judge: Quinn Hughes TInterpretation – the aff must specify what type of Private Actor Appropriation they affect.Appropriation is extremely vague – no legal precedent means no normal meansPershing 19, Abigail D. "Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today." Yale J. Int'l L. 44 (2019): 149. (Robina Fellow at European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights Yale Law School)Elmer AND (or at least tolerated) and what has been prohibited or rejected. That functions as a resolvability standard because their model is impossible to determineViolation: they don’tThe net benefit is shiftiness – vague plan wording wrecks Neg Ground since it’s impossible to know which arguments link given different types of appropriation like mining, space col, satellites, and tourism – the 1AR dodges links by saying they don’t affect particular types of appropriation, or they don’t reduce private appropriation enough to trigger the linkSpec is key – otherwise they can just shift their advocacy depending on the 1nc and say no link to my positions which wrecks competitive equity. No regress on resolutional spec shells because there’s a limited number of words in the rez i.e.approrpirate, private entities, etc.. Non-lit-based spec would lose to reasonability and no caselist or abuse. CX doesn’t check – preround prep was skewed which is when people construct the 1NC so I lose 30 minutes to prep, judges also don’t flow cross ex so whatever is said is irresolvable and unverifiable.Fairness – A~ testing – if they were unfair we were skewed in responding which means you cant evaluate their truth claims b~ they concede its authority viaNo RVIs – A~ logic – you don’t win for meeting your burden, that o/w all args need to make logical sense to be evaluated – B~ creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp and get both speeches to weigh which chills neg reading theory means infinite abusePrefer Competing Interps over reasonability – A~ reasonability’s arbitrary and forces judge intervention especially with 2ar recontextualizations to always sound like the more reasonable debater – B~ norm setting - we find the best possible norms – C~ reasonability collapses - you use offense/defense paradigm to evaluate brightlinesDTD – A~ Epistemic Skew – I was structurally precluded from engaging in substance, means you can eval it, they are always ahead – B~ deters future abuse – empirically confirmed via a prioris, , | 2/18/22 |
ND21 - DA - TechTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Minnetonka MW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Global tech innovation high now.Mercury News et al 6/4 ~Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, June 4, 2021, "Editorial: How America can Win the Global Tech War" https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/04/editorial-why-silicon-valley-needs-endless-frontier-bill/ gord0~ AND investments in research and development that will spark the next wave of innovation. Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector.Hanasoge 16 ~Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; "The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn’t specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/~~//SJWen AND in a city like Kolkata, which carries a strong trade union culture. Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector.Vynck et al 21 ~Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; "Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech," The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer/~~//SJWen AND as the PRO Act, to recognize gig worker collectives as real unions. Technological innovation solves every existential threat – which outweighs.Matthews 18 Dylan. Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University. 10-26-2018. "How to help people millions of years from now." Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good AND far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery. | 11/5/21 |
ND21 - K - DeanTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Aryan Janasi - Fabrice Etienne - Michael Harris 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 – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. The alternative is the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon – only our methodology can fight capitalism, anything else allows it to take over co-opting any movement – Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND in, welcoming the new comrade into relations irreducible to their broader setting. The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 11/7/21 |
ND21 - K - Dean v2Tournament: The Tradition | Round: 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: Luiz Bravim The telos of the 1ac’s politics is the strike – that naturalizes capital’s control and is parasitic on political organizing.Eidlin 20 Barry Eidlin (assistant professor of sociology at McGill University and the author of Labor and the Class Idea in the United States and Canada), 1-6-2020, "Why Unions Are Good – But Not Good Enough," Jacobin, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/marxism-trade-unions-socialism-revolutionary-organizing AND formation of "a political organization of the working class as a whole." Recognizing a right to strike reduces revolutionary potential and fractures class organizing – turns the perm.Crépon 19 Mark Crépon (French philosopher), translated by Micol Bez "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin’s ‘Toward the Critique of Violence,’" Critical Times, 2:2, August 2019, DOI 10.1215/26410478-7708331 AND and to take responsibility for it that the left regularly loses workers’ support. The alternative is the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon – only our methodology can fight capitalism, anything else allows it to take over co-opting any movement – Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND in, welcoming the new comrade into relations irreducible to their broader setting. The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - K - Dean v3Tournament: The Tradition | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Isaiah Salgado KForms 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. The alternative is the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon – only our methodology can fight capitalism, anything else allows it to take over co-opting any movement – Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND in, welcoming the new comrade into relations irreducible to their broader setting. The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. | 11/14/21 |
ND21 - NC - AgambenTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert In order for the resolution to be true, the aff must prove that it is conceptually coherent to have an absolute ban of lethal autonomous weapons. To clarify, that when the state guarantees X, it cannot structurally falter from that obligation. If not, you negate. Prefer:1 - text – Unconditional means no conditions which means that the state cannot falter from it. Free Dictionary:https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unconditional LHP AV Text is a side constraint to other interps of the res since it establishes what it means which controls fairness and education.2 - Conceptual necessity – If the state cannot conceptually be obligated to ban lethal autonomous weapons, then the principle itself is incoherent – it presupposes some binding force. Means (a) you’d still negate even if the burden is false since it proves the resolution false (b) it’s a prereq to debating the res since my burden evaluates what it means to affirm or negate.3 - Real world – the aff would be an incoherent policy if it was impossible, its effectiveness wouldn’t matter. That’s why policy makers don’t debate over outrageous policies like making everyone live forever – they may seem good in the abstract, but are impossible to apply. Key to fairness and education since it’s the basis for prep and a coherent understanding of the res.4 - Hijacks your role of the ballot —- (a) strategies against oppression must be pragmatic, otherwise you get stuck in ivory-towered theorizing which doesn’t lead to tangible change (b) whether or not an unconditional right to strike is a good methodology to fight violence or oppression relies on how the state relates to it as an agentNow negate, the constitutive feature of the law is that the sovereign creates it, but the sovereign lives outside of the law and has complete control over the it. The sovereign is the only authority over the law, creating a state of exception; the state cannot undermine the sovereign in the state of exception. Thus, any principle that mandates the state to act is impossible.Agamben 04 ~Agamben, Giorgio. "Homo Sacer – Sovereign Power and Bare Life". Translated by Daniel Heller-Rozan. Published 2004. Bracketed for gendered language~ AA AND all a "taking of the outside," an exception (Ausnahme). ¶ Implications:1~ You negate since the state can never limit its own authority since under a state of exception, the sovereign has complete control. The fed can always undermine a ban by creating exceptions2~ Turns case – investing in the idea of the state being constrained by the law is an illusion of sovereignty and invests us more into the violence of the state – its cruelly optimistic to think the state functions any other way – the plan’s recognition of the right to strike defuses radical potential and legitimizes violence.Crépon 19 Mark Crépon (French philosopher), translated by Micol Bez "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin’s ‘Toward the Critique of Violence,’" Critical Times, 2:2, August 2019, DOI 10.1215/26410478-7708331 AND and to take responsibility for it that the left regularly loses workers’ support. 3~ any other conception of the state leads to regress – there will always need to be another rule for a rule that the sovereign would need to abide by, which means the sovereign has to function outside of the law to be able to act | 2/19/22 |
ND21 - NC - HobbesTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Rosemount CP | Judge: Michael Harris Permissibility negates – ought implies an obligation but permissibility is a lack of one which means the neg met their burden of disproving an obligation.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pEthics is based in language –1~ It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). 2~ It’s inescapable – even if moral theorization could occur absent language it can only be communicated within it when getting others to act on it to create goodnessAnd language causes infinite violence –1~ Language gives rise to comparison which results in endless competition and violence. Pettit 2,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND becomes a creature "whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men" 2~ Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say a saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation.Thus, morality requires an authority to enforce a universal moral theory and resolve conflict. Only an absolute sovereign can do this. Parrish 2:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND all directions" and fall inevitably into the violence of the natural condition." Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it for motivation – morality lacks authority over agents. Even if the aff defines the good it gives no way to obligate agents to actually be good. That hijacks the aff since defining good and denying the ability to enforce it the sovereign creates is contradictory.That negates –1~ The aff creates post-fiat obligations for the state – this is incoherent because it implies an authority higher than the state to constrain the sovereign. Only sovereign entities can create moral obligations, so the state can’t have an obligation to act2~ The aff gives employees, specifically public sector ones, the right to strike against the state which is definitionally a violation of the sovereign’s will | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - NC - Hobbes v2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Jalyn Wu Permissibility negates – ought implies an obligation but permissibility is a lack of one which means the neg met their burden of disproving an obligation.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pEthics is based in language –1~ It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). 2~ It’s inescapable – even if moral theorization could occur absent language it can only be communicated within it when getting others to act on it to create goodnessAnd language causes infinite violence –1~ Language gives rise to comparison which results in endless competition and violence. Pettit 2,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND becomes a creature "whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men" 2~ Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say a saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation.Thus, morality requires an authority to enforce a universal moral theory and resolve conflict. Only an absolute sovereign can do this. Parrish 2:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND all directions" and fall inevitably into the violence of the natural condition." Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it for motivation – morality lacks authority over agents. Even if the aff defines the good it gives no way to obligate agents to actually be good. That hijacks the aff since defining good and denying the ability to enforce it the sovereign creates is contradictory.I negate: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strikeThat negates –1~ The aff creates post-fiat obligations for the state – this is incoherent because it implies an authority higher than the state to constrain the sovereign. Only sovereign entities can create moral obligations, so the state can’t have an obligation to act2~ The aff gives employees, specifically public sector ones, the right to strike against the state which is definitionally a violation of the sovereign’s will | 11/7/21 |
ND21 - NC - Hobbes v3Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Jalyn Wu Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways.Ethics is based in language –1~ It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). 2~ It’s inescapable – even if moral theorization could occur absent language it can only be communicated within it when getting others to act on it to create goodnessAnd language causes infinite violence –1~ Language gives rise to comparison which results in endless competition and violence. Pettit 2,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND becomes a creature "whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men" 2~ Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say a saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation.Thus, morality requires an authority to enforce a universal moral theory and resolve conflict. Only an absolute sovereign can do this. Parrish 2:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND all directions" and fall inevitably into the violence of the natural condition." Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it for motivation – morality lacks authority over agents. Even if the aff defines the good it gives no way to obligate agents to actually be good. That hijacks the aff since defining good and denying the ability to enforce it the sovereign creates is contradictory.That negates –1~ The aff creates post-fiat obligations for the state – this is incoherent because it implies an authority higher than the state to constrain the sovereign. Only sovereign entities can create moral obligations, so the state can’t have an obligation to act2~ The aff gives employees, specifically public sector ones, the right to strike against the state which is definitionally a violation of the sovereign’s will | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - NC - Hobbes v4Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: Nova CD | Judge: Jeong-Wan Choi 1NNCPermissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways.Ethics is based in language –1~ It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). 2~ It’s inescapable – even if moral theorization could occur absent language it can only be communicated within it when getting others to act on it to create goodnessAnd language causes infinite violence –1~ Language gives rise to comparison which results in endless competition and violence. Pettit 2,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND becomes a creature "whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men" 2~ Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say a saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation.Thus, morality requires an authority to enforce a universal moral theory and resolve conflict. Only an absolute sovereign can do this. Parrish 2:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND all directions" and fall inevitably into the violence of the natural condition." Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it for motivation – morality lacks authority over agents. Even if the aff defines the good it gives no way to obligate agents to actually be good. That hijacks the aff since defining good and denying the ability to enforce it the sovereign creates is contradictory.That negates –1~ The aff creates post-fiat obligations for the state – this is incoherent because it implies an authority higher than the state to constrain the sovereign. Only sovereign entities can create moral obligations, so the state can’t have an obligation to act2~ The aff gives employees, specifically public sector ones, the right to strike against the state which is definitionally a violation of the sovereign’s will | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - NC - LibertarianismTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Minnetonka MW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Permissibility negates – ought implies an obligation but permissibility is a lack of one which means the neg met their burden of disproving an obligation.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pObjective morality is epistemically inaccessible –A~ Rule-Following Paradox – there is nothing inherent in a rule that mandates following a specific interpretation. They are always subject to interpretation by the observer, which means an objective moral rule would get interpreted differently by different agentsB~ Moral Disagreement – thousands of years of moral disagreement prove that not everyone agrees on a moral theory. Also means even if there is a universal theory, it’s not binding as proven by every past act of immoralityC~ Epistemic Bias – governments are skewed by power relationships in society, so them enforcing a universal moral theory would inevitably be biased and unable to account for views of minoritiesThe solution is the libertarian utopia – only the neg framework preserves people’s freedom to pursue their conception of truth, Mack 18:Eric Mack, June 15, 2018, "Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/~~#FraDisPro LHP AV AND chosen communities will be internally homogeneous with heterogeneity existing only across these communities.) Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarianism.1~ The right to strike necessarily involves violating the right to property and contract – it’s coercive, Gourevitch 16 summarizes:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND Just what right do workers have to jobs that they refuse to perform? | 11/5/21 |
ND21 - NC - Libertarianism v2Tournament: The Tradition | Round: 1 | Opponent: Pine View EL | Judge: Alex Anania Because ought is defined as moral obligation by Merriam Webster, I value morality.Accordingly, my value criterion is preserving freedom by protecting individual negative rights. To clarify, a positive right is claiming others must provide you with something, while a negative right is claiming others must not take what you have. There are two major reasons to prefer it:1~ Only embracing the negative right can cohere with important conceptions of self-ownership key to morality. This card also explains positive and negative rights. Philosophy Professor Edward Feser SummarizesEdward Feser ~Philosophy professor at Loyola~, On Nozick by Eric Mack, 2004, p. 36-7, Volume 8, Issue 4 Scopa AND with one another, and thus with the notion that rights are inviolable. OffenseMy sole contention is that the right to strike violates individual freedoms1~ When you strike you keep your job but refuse to work, arbitrarily limiting the freedom of others who need a job to get one.Gourevitch summarizes in 2016,Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND job she not only never acquired but that she then refuses to perform. Case | 11/15/21 |
ND21 - PIC - PoliceTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Minnetonka MW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Counterplan: The United States federal government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike except for police officers.Police Strikes are used to combat racial progress and attempts to limit police power. Making them legal and easier only make progress much harder.Andrew Grim 2020 What is the ‘blue flu’ and how has it increased police power? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/01/what-is-blue-flu-how-has-it-increased-police-power/ AND wrest back control of the public debate on policing and reassert their independence. Those strikes cement a police culture which leads to endless amounts of racist violence and the bolstering of the prison industrial complex.Chaney and Ray 13, Cassandra (Has a PhD and is a professor at LSU. Also has a strong focus in the structure of Black families) , and Ray V. Robertson (Also has a PhD and is a criminal justice professor at LSU). "Racism and police brutality in America." Journal of African American Studies 17.4 (2013): 480-505. SMdo I really need a card for this AND shape both intergroup dynamics and support for criminal justice policy (Leverentz 2012). | 11/5/21 |
ND21 - PIC - Police v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: Nova CD | Judge: Jeong-Wan Choi Counterplan: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike except for police officers.Police Strikes are used to combat racial progress and attempts to limit police power. Making them legal and easier only make progress much harder.Andrew Grim 2020 What is the ‘blue flu’ and how has it increased police power? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/01/what-is-blue-flu-how-has-it-increased-police-power/ AND wrest back control of the public debate on policing and reassert their independence. Those strikes cement a police culture which leads to endless amounts of racist violence and the bolstering of the prison industrial complex.Chaney and Ray 13, Cassandra (Has a PhD and is a professor at LSU. Also has a strong focus in the structure of Black families) , and Ray V. Robertson (Also has a PhD and is a criminal justice professor at LSU). "Racism and police brutality in America." Journal of African American Studies 17.4 (2013): 480-505. SMdo I really need a card for this AND shape both intergroup dynamics and support for criminal justice policy (Leverentz 2012). CaseFrameworkHobbes hijacks –1~ Humanity’s ability to think about the future leads to perpetual pain created by fear of the future – only a sovereign that can protect future wellbeing solves. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more." This explains the real implication of pleasure being intrinsically good to humans – the relationship doesn’t just end there.2~ Non-descriptive words necessary for ethics don’t have a stable meaning so there is infinite conflict over how to interpret them making peace impossible. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND almost any one and the same object" (L 6.5). Only a sovereign can absolve conflict over the meaning of pleasure to providing a starting point for its maximization. Pettit 09,Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND or aversive by the sovereign’s judgment. More on this in the next chapter 3~ Collapses – whenever a sovereign is removed, each person becomes their own sovereign and must attempt to force others under their will until someone prevails and becomes the sovereign. Parrish :Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND comparison with others"46 or human nature as a creator of meaning." | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - PIC - TeachersTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Rosemount CP | Judge: Michael Harris Counterplan: A just government ought to:recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike, except in the case of educators.raise educators’ salaries to a living wage contingent on the regional cost of livingEducator strikes are devastating – they ruin generational educational outcomes, distort democracy, cause massive violence, and perpetuate inequality, but pay raises solve any aff offense, le Grange 12:Corlene le Grange, ~BA, LLB Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree Magister Legum in Comparative Child Law at the North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus), South Africa~April 2012, "The limitation of the educator’s right to strike by the child’s right to basic Education" https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.840.4795andrep=rep1andtype=pdf LHP AV AND as will be seen in the next chapter on international and regional law. Educational innovation solves extinction.Serdyukov 17 Peter Serdyukov, National University, La Jolla, California. 03/27/2017. "Innovation in Education: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What to Do about It?" Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4–33. AND one turns in education" (Matthew, 1964, p. v). | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - T - ChinaTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: James Stuckert Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the People’s Republic of China recognizing a right to strike.Just governments respect libertiesDorn 12 James A. Dorn, Cato Journal, "The Scope of Government in a Free Society", Fall 2012, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/12/v32n3-10.pdf AND people’s money, but to prevent injustice by protecting property and securing liberty. ~china~ is not just. It commits genocide against Uyghurs and denies itBBC 21 Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused of genocide?, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037, AND " camps are there to combat separatism and Islamist militancy in the region. Violation: they didImpacts –A~ accessibility – they try to justify China as just which is exclusionary towards minorities and people of color who feel this violence everyday. This is supercharged by their reps and performance – they literally try to hide authoritarianism and promote Chinese soft power in spite of this systematic oppression. Hold the line – accessibility is an antecedent question to any other judge obligation because it’s a prereq to debate and a jurisdictional obligation of educators.B~ they’re not a just government in any way which side constrains any pragmatics offense and proves limits explosionPrefer –Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution2~ Limits – there are almost 200 national governments in the world which is an unmanageable burden, especially for a 3 week camp. Only imposing restrictions via the word just can ensure debates are limited and full of clash3~ Fiat abuse – the only way they access these large scale impacts is by fiating a massive shift – the core topic lit is a question of what to do with places with conditional right to strikes – this destroys negative ground by letting the aff auto outweigh. Fiat abuse is the highest pragmatic offense because it’s specifically about this advocacy and demonstrates in-round abuse4~ TVA – use ideal theory instead. That’s better – a~ promotes in-depth philosophical clash over labor law that’s constittuive to LD b~ solves your offense because you can indicate you would solve these problems in an ideal world too – no reason you need China in particularFairness is a voter – a~ debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation b~ procedural constraintEducation is a voter – it’s why schools fund debateNo RVI – a~ illogical b~ baitingCompeting interps – it’s key to avoid reasonability’s arbitrariness and you can’t be reasonably topical because it’s yes/noDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse – they won’t read args they can lose on b~ drop the arg is the same because it’s the aff advocacy c~ to rectify the time lost reading theory – anything else rewards abuse | 2/19/22 |
ND21 - T - FWKTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Aryan Janasi - Fabrice Etienne - Michael Harris Interpretation – the affirmative should defend a hypothetical enactment of a topical post-fiat policy action i.e the implementation of a legal framework to guarantee the right of workers to strike.~1~ Resolved requires a policyLouisiana House 05 ~3-8-2005, http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm~~ AND , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4) ~2~ Ought refers to a legal relationship between an empirical condition and some legally mandated consequence. KELSEN:Pure Theory of Law, Hans Kelsen, 1934 AND even if, indeed, the delict has not taken place at all. Violation: They don’t (elaborate)Vote neg:~x~ Clash – I don’t have prep specific to their non-T aff to generate in depth clash – they can leverage their specific knowledge of their aff to always frame out generics and use their extensive frontlines to crush any pre round prep I generated, magnified by the fact that I can only prep the rez o/w ~a~ Education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, B~ Advocacy Skills - turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change in the real world is by being able to make advocacies and engage in them– allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and forces good engagementReject clash bad – they purposely read their aff in a competitive activity that assumes clash~x~ State Education – debate is a unique forum in which we can learn the most out of all spaces about the state, even if the state is bad, using the state and talking about it allows us to understand how levels of power and how the state functions – that turns the aff – in order to engage in your method and challenge the state we need to understand how it operates – also takes out any T violent arguments~x~ Limits – absent the rez the aff could be anything which makes infinite affs. That destroys fairness – their abuse is supercharged by two things. A~ they literally have infinite prep since the 2-month topic reset doesn’t apply and B~ they can cherry pick their aff to be something trivially true like racism bad which I can’t substantively deny.Framing issues:~x~ Fairness o/w - a~ testing – you can’t evaluate their args because the round was skewed – if they have 10 minutes to win their aff or fairness bad and I have 1 for the opposite they will win – proves fairness is good even under their method of (insert their ROB thing) b~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedure c~ Ballot Proximity – voting aff wont solve all of (insert what they want to solve), but its unique to being able to solve fairness ~d~ all your arguments assume they will evaluated by the judge fairly, saying unfairness good is just saying to not evaluate your args~x~ Vote on education – ~a~ it’s the only terminal impact to debate that matters after the round o/w on portability ~b~ its uniquely key to being able to challenge (insert what they want to solve) it’s the only way to know how and what we should be doing~x~ Prefer competing interpretations, reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention which can moot the entirety of 1ac or 1nc speeches.~x~ Drop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the same~x~ No RVI – a~ logic – I’m fair vote for me makes no sense and outweighs because all args must be logical, b~ baiting – rvis incentivize abuse to win on theory~x~ TVA - 1~ Fiat is fake, but you can defend the topic without being the state – that produces the best education and solves their offenseNewman 10 ~Newman, Saul. ~Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, University of London~ Theory and Event, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2010.~ AND rights and equalities, and state practices which in reality violate and deny them 2~ Solvency deficits to the TVA are neg ground – they aren’t entitled to a perfect aff3~ Read the affYou can’t weigh case – A If I win that you preclude me from substantive engagement with the 1AC, then you will obviously win the case—means you can’t cross-apply case impacts or arguments to the other page since we indict your ability to read them in the first place B Framework is a procedural question – all of the claims of the 1AC are substantive but not theoretical. The terms of debate necessarily precede substance – if there were no speech times for example, debate would devolve into babbling incoherence. | 11/7/21 |
ND21 - T - PrisonersTournament: The Tradition | Round: 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: Luiz Bravim Interpretation: the affiramtive cannot specify prison "workers"Prisoners aren’t included under workers definition – Hurst 20https://uclawreview.org/2020/11/24/prisoners-are-not-for-sale-incarcerated-workers-deserve-employee-status/ AND have also rejected inmates’ employment discrimination claims on the same basis.~19~ Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolutionD~ grammar first – all args assume grammatical correctness to evaluate themE~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Limits – extempted3~ TVA – extemptedFairness – extemptedEducation – extemptedNo RVI – extemptedDTD – extemptedCI – extemptedT First – extemptedCan’t Weigh Case – extempted(extempted all of the above) | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - T - USTournament: The Tradition | Round: 1 | Opponent: Pine View EL | Judge: Alex Anania TInterpretation: A just government protects property and is impartial.Madison 1784:James Madison, ~Founding Father~ "Four Documents Concerning Confiscation of Property" in the Legislature of Virginia, 3 December 1784, http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst121/Madison'on'Property'Confiscation.htm LHP AV AND in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. That outweighs –A~ it’s a founding father of the US, so if he disagrees with the US being a just government then it outweighs on founders’ intentB~ it provides the foundation of government itself – if constitutive burden is to protect property, then that determines justiceViolation:The US a~ commits eminent domain abuse, which violates property and b~ does it against minorities and the poor which is not impartial, Somin 17:Ilya Somin, ~Contributor, The Volokh Conspiracy which is is a blog co-founded in 2002 by law professor Eugene Volokh,~3~ covering legal and political issues~4~~5~~6~ from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these."~, May 26, 2017 at 10:40 a.m. EDT, "The American experience with eminent domain – and its possible lessons for others" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/26/the-american-experience-with-eminent-domain-and-its-possible-lessons-for-others/ LHP AV AND fortune" is – to put it mildly – belied by the evidence. Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolutionD~ grammar first – all args assume grammatical correctness to evaluate themE~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Limits – there are almost 200 national governments in the world which is an unmanageable burden, especially for a 3 week camp. Only imposing restrictions via the word just can ensure debates are limited and full of clash3~ TVA – use ideal theory instead and defend whole rez. That’s better – a~ promotes in-depth philosophical clash over labor law that’s constittuive to LD b~ solves your offense because you can indicate you would solve these problems in an ideal world too – no reason you need the US in particular | 11/15/21 |
ND21 - T - US v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Interpretation: A just government protects property and is impartial.Madison 1784:James Madison, ~Founding Father~ "Four Documents Concerning Confiscation of Property" in the Legislature of Virginia, 3 December 1784, http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst121/Madison'on'Property'Confiscation.htm LHP AV AND in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. That outweighs –A~ it’s a founding father of the US, so if he disagrees with the US being a just government then it outweighs on founders’ intentB~ it provides the foundation of government itself – if constitutive burden is to protect property, then that determines justiceViolation:The US a~ commits eminent domain abuse, which violates property and b~ does it against minorities and the poor which is not impartial, Somin 17:Ilya Somin, ~Contributor, The Volokh Conspiracy which is is a blog co-founded in 2002 by law professor Eugene Volokh,~3~ covering legal and political issues~4~~5~~6~ from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these."~, May 26, 2017 at 10:40 a.m. EDT, "The American experience with eminent domain – and its possible lessons for others" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/26/the-american-experience-with-eminent-domain-and-its-possible-lessons-for-others/ LHP AV AND fortune" is – to put it mildly – belied by the evidence. Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolutionD~ objectivity – only semantics are objective whereas pragmatics are subjective which means intervention2~ Limits – there are almost 200 national governments in the world which is an unmanageable burden. Only imposing restrictions via the word just can ensure debates are limited and full of clash. Supercharged by the fact they can spec a non topical government.3~ TVA – use ideal theory instead. That’s better – a~ promotes in-depth philosophical clash over labor law that’s constittuive to LD b~ solves your offense because you can indicate you would solve these problems in an ideal world too – no reason you need the US in particularFairness is a voter – a~ debate is a game that requires objective evaluation, without it wouldn’t exist b~ procedural constraint – if I had 10 seconds to respond to the aff I would loose, that proves it’s a constraint on debating itselfCompeting interps – a~ you can’t be reasonably topical its binary b~ requires judge intervention of whats the most reasonable c~No RVI – a~ logic – you don’t win for meeting your burden of proof – showing up to a basketball game with the correct clothes doesn’t mean you win b~ baiting – incentivizes good theory debaters to be infinitely abusive and prep out the 1ar and 2ar, that means we can never check abuse or set normsDTD – a~ DTA on T is functionally the same b~ key to deterring future abuse, or people will just bait it out c~ epistemics – the abuse already happened so the rest of the flow is skewed | 12/18/21 |
SO21 - CP - Genetic EngineeringTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - CP - PublicPrivateTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit HZ | Judge: Alex Rivera CP Text: Resolved: Member Nations of the World Trade Organization should increase Public/Private partnerships between IP owners of the Covid-19 vaccine and the government – we control solvency – they only make the problem worse – Brown 21:Brown, Delphine. "Powerhouse Points: Will Trips Waiver of Ip Protection for Covid-19 Vaccines Serve Global Need?" Powerhouse Points: Will TRIPS Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines Serve Global Need?-News | Freeborn and Peters LLP, 2021, www.freeborn.com/perspectives/powerhouse-points-will-trips-waiver-ip-protection-covid-19-vaccines-serve-global-need. LHP PS AND and make a timely and effective difference in COVID-19 vaccine availability. | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - CP - TwoPart Hybrid SchemeTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westford AW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne CP: Member nations of the WTO should create a two-part hybrid scheme to protect clinical data as Gulatta describes.Gulatta, Lea M. 2018 "Pharming Out Data: A Proposal for Promoting Innovation and Public Health through a Hybrid Clinical Data Protection Scheme." https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1andsid=db4adde5-9f42-4248-8469-6510e5a1cb5240sdc-v-sessmgr02andbdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU3d~~#AN=134133646anddb=a9h AND of longer protection for the data generated in creating the rare successful drug. Functionally competitive: it is possible to have data exclusivity with patent, the plan says it is one or the other. 2. text competitive: because generics pay, it increases on NB.Solve the aff: a) increases access to generics proportionate to the market for generics. If people want the data, they’ll play for access. b) drug prices will go down because generic companies pay for data, letting innovation happen faster.NB is innovation: | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - CP - TwoPart Hybrid Scheme v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel CP: Member nations of the WTO should create a two-part hybrid scheme to protect clinical data as Gulatta describes. Gulatta 18:Gulatta, Lea M. 2018 "Pharming Out Data: A Proposal for Promoting Innovation and Public Health through a Hybrid Clinical Data Protection Scheme." https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1andsid=db4adde5-9f42-4248-8469-6510e5a1cb5240sdc-v-sessmgr02andbdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU3d~~#AN=134133646anddb=a9h AND of longer protection for the data generated in creating the rare successful drug. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - DA - InfrastructureTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra Biden’s infrastructure bill will pass through reconciliation but absolute Dem Unity is key.Turns Structural Violence AND not only boost economic growth but have the adverse effect of fueling inflation. Pharma backlashes to the Plan – they’re aggressive lobbyists and will do anything to preserve patent rights.Turns Case – Waters down the Plan due to lobbying AND controls on drug prices. The Senate has not voted on the bill. They choose Infrastructure as backlash – they bill costs Pharma millions – lobbyists can derail the Agenda.Brennan 8-2 Zachary Brennan 8-2-2021 "How the biopharma industry is helping to pay for the bipartisan infrastructure bill" https://endpts.com/how-the-biopharma-industry-is-helping-to-pay-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/ (Senior Editor at Endpoint News)Elmer AND thing blows up and we get nothing on either side," Lawson said. Democrat Senators in Big Pharma’s pocket derails the Plan.Sirota 8-23 David Sirota 8-23-2021 "Dem Obstructionists Are Bankrolled By Pharma And Oil" https://www.dailyposter.com/dem-obstructionists-are-bankrolled-by-pharma-and-oil/ (an American journalist, columnist at The Guardian, and editor for Jacobin. He is also a political commentator and radio host based in Denver. He is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, political spokesperson, and blogger)Elmer AND $519,000 from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries. Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over.USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/ Elmer AND persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option. | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - DA - Infrastructure v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westford AW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Biden’s infrastructure bill will pass through reconciliation but absolute Dem Unity is key.Turns Structural Violence AND not only boost economic growth but have the adverse effect of fueling inflation. Pharma backlashes to the Plan – they’re aggressive lobbyists and will do anything to preserve patent rights.Turns Case – Waters down the Plan due to lobbying AND controls on drug prices. The Senate has not voted on the bill. They choose Infrastructure as backlash – they bill costs Pharma millions – lobbyists can derail the Agenda.Brennan 8-2 Zachary Brennan 8-2-2021 "How the biopharma industry is helping to pay for the bipartisan infrastructure bill" https://endpts.com/how-the-biopharma-industry-is-helping-to-pay-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/ (Senior Editor at Endpoint News)Elmer AND thing blows up and we get nothing on either side," Lawson said. Democrat Senators in Big Pharma’s pocket derails the Plan.Sirota 8-23 David Sirota 8-23-2021 "Dem Obstructionists Are Bankrolled By Pharma And Oil" https://www.dailyposter.com/dem-obstructionists-are-bankrolled-by-pharma-and-oil/ (an American journalist, columnist at The Guardian, and editor for Jacobin. He is also a political commentator and radio host based in Denver. He is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, political spokesperson, and blogger)Elmer AND $519,000 from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries. Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over.USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/ Elmer AND persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option. warming causes extinctionXu 17Yangyang Xu 17, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas AandM University; and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9/26/17, "Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 114, No. 39, p. 10315-10323 AND . Fig. 2 displays these three risk categorizations (vertical dashed lines). | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - DA - Infrastructure v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit HZ | Judge: Alex Rivera Biden’s infrastructure bill will pass through reconciliation but absolute Dem Unity is key.Turns Structural Violence AND not only boost economic growth but have the adverse effect of fueling inflation. Pharma backlashes to the Plan – they’re aggressive lobbyists and will do anything to preserve patent rights.Turns Case – Waters down the Plan due to lobbying AND controls on drug prices. The Senate has not voted on the bill. They choose Infrastructure as backlash – they bill costs Pharma millions – lobbyists can derail the Agenda.Brennan 8-2 Zachary Brennan 8-2-2021 "How the biopharma industry is helping to pay for the bipartisan infrastructure bill" https://endpts.com/how-the-biopharma-industry-is-helping-to-pay-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/ (Senior Editor at Endpoint News)Elmer AND thing blows up and we get nothing on either side," Lawson said. Democrat Senators in Big Pharma’s pocket derails the Plan.Sirota 8-23 David Sirota 8-23-2021 "Dem Obstructionists Are Bankrolled By Pharma And Oil" https://www.dailyposter.com/dem-obstructionists-are-bankrolled-by-pharma-and-oil/ (an American journalist, columnist at The Guardian, and editor for Jacobin. He is also a political commentator and radio host based in Denver. He is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, political spokesperson, and blogger)Elmer AND $519,000 from donors in the pharmaceutical and health products industries. Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over.USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/ Elmer AND persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - DA - InnovationTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Pharma innovation is strong now – patent incentives are key to maintaining progress, Austin and Hayford 21:David Austin, ~an Analyst in CBO’s Microeconomics Studies Division~ and Tamara Hayford, ~a principal analyst in the Health, Retirement, and Long-Term Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office~ prepared the report with guidance from Joseph Kile, Lyle Nelson, and Julie Topoleski. Christopher Adams, Pranav Bhandarkar, and David Wylie (formerly of CBO) contributed to the analysis., April 2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry" https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 LHP AV DOA: 9/8/21 AND ) by the National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals similar trends.3 Intellectual property protections are key to pharmaceutical innovation – laundry of list of studies – that solves access better, Ezeli and Cory 19:Stephen Ezell, ~vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He focuses on science and technology policy, international competitiveness, trade, manufacturing, and services issues.~ and Nigel Cory, ~an associate director covering trade policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He focuses on cross-border data flows, data governance, intellectual property, and how they each relate to digital trade and the broader digital economy. Cory has provided in-person testimony and written submissions and has published reports and op-eds relating to these issues in the United States, the European Union, Australia, China, India, and New Zealand, among other countries and regions, and he has completed research projects for international bodies such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and the World Trade Organization.~ "The Way Forward for Intellectual Property Internationally" April 25, 2019, https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally LHP AV AND intellectual property development potential are inhibited by their own weak intellectual property protections. Pharma Innovation prevents Extinction – checks new diseases.Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) AND profit in medicine and especially in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - DA - Innovation v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel Pharma innovation is strong now – patent incentives are key to maintaining progress, Austin and Hayford 21:David Austin, ~an Analyst in CBO’s Microeconomics Studies Division~ and Tamara Hayford, ~a principal analyst in the Health, Retirement, and Long-Term Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office~ prepared the report with guidance from Joseph Kile, Lyle Nelson, and Julie Topoleski. Christopher Adams, Pranav Bhandarkar, and David Wylie (formerly of CBO) contributed to the analysis., April 2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry" https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 LHP AV DOA: 9/8/21 AND ) by the National Science Foundation (NSF) reveals similar trends.3 Intellectual property protections are key to pharmaceutical innovation – laundry of list of studies – that solves access better, Ezeli and Cory 19:Stephen Ezell, ~vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He focuses on science and technology policy, international competitiveness, trade, manufacturing, and services issues.~ and Nigel Cory, ~an associate director covering trade policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He focuses on cross-border data flows, data governance, intellectual property, and how they each relate to digital trade and the broader digital economy. Cory has provided in-person testimony and written submissions and has published reports and op-eds relating to these issues in the United States, the European Union, Australia, China, India, and New Zealand, among other countries and regions, and he has completed research projects for international bodies such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and the World Trade Organization.~ "The Way Forward for Intellectual Property Internationally" April 25, 2019, https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally LHP AV AND intellectual property development potential are inhibited by their own weak intellectual property protections. Pharma Innovation checks new diseases.Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) AND profit in medicine and especially in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - DA - Orphan DrugTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westford AW | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Orphan drug legislation is specifically key to stimulate research into rare diseasesHorgan et. al 20 D, Moss B, Boccia S, Genuardi M, Gajewski M, Capurso G, Fenaux P, Gulbis B, Pellegrini M, Mañú Pereira M, M, Gutiérrez Valle V, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, Kent A, Cattaneo I, Jagielska B, Belina I, Tumiene B, Ward A, Papaluca M: Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU’s Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed? Biomed Hub 2020;5:1-11. doi: 10.1159/000509272 https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/509272~~# sid AND was developed explicitly to support efforts in this field of innovation ~12~. Orphan diseases require time intensive care and affect millions.Lancet 19 ~Lancet, 2-1-2019, accessed on 9-6-2021, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, "Spotlight on rare diseases", https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(19)30006-3/fulltext~~//sid AND present in adulthood and children surviving rare diseases eventually transition to adult care. Rare diseases disproportionately affect people of colorRDDC, No Date (RDDC, No Date, accessed on 9-6-2021, Rare Disease Diversity Coalition, "Charting thePath Forwardfor Equity inRare Diseases", https://3hqwxl1mqiah5r73r2q7zll1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/RDDC'Path'Forward'Final.pdf)//sid AND 22 And implicit bias particularly harms people of color with rare diseases .23 | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - DA - Orphan Drug v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel Orphan drug legislation is specifically key to stimulate research into rare diseasesHorgan et. al 20 D, Moss B, Boccia S, Genuardi M, Gajewski M, Capurso G, Fenaux P, Gulbis B, Pellegrini M, Mañú Pereira M, M, Gutiérrez Valle V, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, Kent A, Cattaneo I, Jagielska B, Belina I, Tumiene B, Ward A, Papaluca M: Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU’s Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed? Biomed Hub 2020;5:1-11. doi: 10.1159/000509272 https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/509272~~# sid AND was developed explicitly to support efforts in this field of innovation ~12~. Orphan diseases require time intensive care and affect millions.Lancet 19 ~Lancet, 2-1-2019, accessed on 9-6-2021, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, "Spotlight on rare diseases", https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(19)30006-3/fulltext~~//sid AND present in adulthood and children surviving rare diseases eventually transition to adult care. Rare diseases disproportionately affect people of colorRDDC, No Date (RDDC, No Date, accessed on 9-6-2021, Rare Disease Diversity Coalition, "Charting thePath Forwardfor Equity inRare Diseases", https://3hqwxl1mqiah5r73r2q7zll1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/RDDC'Path'Forward'Final.pdf)//sid AND 22 And implicit bias particularly harms people of color with rare diseases .23 | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - Framework - UtilTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra And all justifications of actions rely on value statuses of pain and pleasure – they’re intrinsically valuable – to justify beyond that runs into moral incoherence. Moen 16,Moen 16 ~Ole Martin Moen, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo "An Argument for Hedonism" Journal of Value Inquiry (Springer), 50 (2) 2016: 267–281~ SJDI RCT by JPark AND places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Its hedonistic act-util Independently prefer:~1~ 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~ No act-omission distinction – governments have to yes/no policies which means that choosing to omit is an act itself so side constraints freeze action C~ Actor specificity comes first because different agents have different obligations. Takes out calc indicts because they’re empirically denied.~2~ 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 that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose.~3~ theory:~A~ 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 and education since it’s a lens through which we engage the res.~4~ Extinction hijacks and side constrains the framework – it o/w and comes firstPummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT AND be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters) | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - Hijack - HegelTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Phoenix Pittman If we need collective deliberation, that presupposes a communal space in which the subject can explain their views, thus they need a sphere of agency resulting in property - Schroeder 05:*bracketed for gendered language* Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. AND however, be a good pragmatic argument in favor of such a regime. That Negates –Abstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order. Violating them undermines the system through which we manifest our rights, meaning it violates our freedom as subjects and outweighs. Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) IP is a form of propertyZeidman et al. 16 ~Bob Zeidman andamp; Eashan Gupta, "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System", IPWatchdog, 1-5-2016, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/, accessed: 8-9-2021.~ Lex VM AND lose their contrary argument that private conversations are personal property to be protected. Means the state can’t remove protections.Zeidman et al. 2 ~Bob Zeidman andamp; Eashan Gupta, "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System", IPWatchdog, 1-5-2016, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/, accessed: 8-9-2021.~ Lex VM AND that limit intellectual property ownership or introduce more government regulation than is required. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - K - DeanTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Rohit Lakshman - Eric Tang - Keshav Dandu the aff’s specific form of frivolous melancholy gives up usefulness of the world and creating change. all their BS theory arguments and tricks to go away from fighting capitalism – the 1AR extensions will prove. They enjoy the 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. They ignore the atmosphere of death and are able to get away with it because of the surrounding exhaustion. Politics demands a choice and a commitment—even if they win some nonsense extension, you can still make that choice. Listen to us, we can tell you what to do. This solves 100 of the inevitable aff appeals to skepticism. Dean 19Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. AND They remind us that the fact of an end should not forestall beginning. The alternative is to become a comrade and practice discipline. Suppressing self-interest and personal desires for the sake of the movement is key to deconstructing capitalism. The role of the ballot is to deconstruct capitalism, it’s the only way to guarantee freedom.Dean 19 Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. AND form.76 Joy in comradeship testifies to the freedom that discipline affords. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - ContractarianismTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Holden Bukowsky The 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.The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Prefer for 1~ regress – agents can always why a rule exists or how to interpret it – that requires a new rule which is regressive. Thus, only self-imposed contractual obligations can generate normative bindingness 2~ Both debaters debate to win the round but we are still restricted by agreed on constraints like 4 mins of prep, speech times, etc. Their very performance justifies the NC framework and proves the AC collapses to the NCI negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: James Stuckert The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Prefer for 1~ regress – agents can always why a rule exists or how to interpret it – that requires a new rule which is regressive. Thus, only self-imposed contractual obligations can generate normative bindingness 2~ Both debaters debate to win the round but we are still restricted by agreed on constraints like 4 mins of prep, speech times, etc. Their very performance justifies the NC framework and proves the AC collapses to the NCI negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate3~ Secrets are good – they are essential parts of contracts formulated by the subject | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v3Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Phoenix Pittman The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Prefer for 1~ regress – agents can always why a rule exists or how to interpret it – that requires a new rule which is regressive. Thus, only self-imposed contractual obligations can generate normative bindingness 2~ Both debaters debate to win the round but we are still restricted by agreed on constraints like 4 mins of prep, speech times, etc. Their very performance justifies the NC framework and proves the AC collapses to the NCI negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate3~ Secrets are good – they are essential parts of contracts formulated by the subject | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw The 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.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.The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism.I negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate3~ Secrets are good – they are essential parts of contracts formulated by the subject | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v5Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki The 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.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.The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Prefer for regress – agents can always why a rule exists or how to interpret it – that requires a new rule which is regressive. Thus, only self-imposed contractual obligations can generate normative bindingnessI negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate3~ Secrets are good – they are essential parts of contracts formulated by the subject | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v6Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Hunter AH | Judge: Nathan Frenkel The 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.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.The Meta Ethic is internalism - Morality only works if we are motivated to follow it. Any external or outside force fails as a way of looking to morality. People making rules to guide or force others to obey will never be a "moral" system, as individuals must have the desire to take an action in order for them to be motivated to take it. Every actual action has to be explained by a belief or desire that the agent has – else they wouldn’t take itNext, every agent takes their ability to act on their ethical system as instrumentally valuable. Only self interest bridges relativism to provide a universal principle.Moore Margaret Moore, Queens University professor in the Political Studies department, cross-appointed (as a courtesy) in Philosophy, Reviewed Work(s): Morals by Agreement. by David Gauthier, Noûs, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 707-714 /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND claims to be able to deduce a system of moral constraints and Principles. This entails a system of mutual self restraint: moral principles can be only be the object of a hypothetical moral agreement that all agents have reason to implement. Contracts are the only standard capable of generating normativity since each agent rationally chooses to protect their self-interest by entering the contract.Gauthier ~David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998~, /AHS PB /BHHS AK recut AND in which she acts, arising from the effects of interaction with other agents Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarianism. Prefer for regress – agents can always why a rule exists or how to interpret it – that requires a new rule which is regressive. Thus, only self-imposed contractual obligations can generate normative bindingnessI negate –1~ Patents are contracts with the government to protect exclusivity in return for disclosure, WIPO:WIPO ~World Intellectual Property Organization~, Frequently Asked Questions: Patents, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq'patents.html LHP AV AND is currently, no universal, international system for the grant of patents. Impacts –A~ Violating contracts agreed to is intrinsically bad as per the frameworkB~ mutual advantage of the contract is undermined as inventors have no incentive to disclose their inventions, which also turns case because other companies can’t make it if they don’t know how toC~ Free riding – other agents can use the knowledge without contribution, which violates the framework because agents not involved in the contract unjustifiably exploit another person.2~ Illegitimacy – the conditions that can create a legitimate new contract are not present – thus, the aff is illegitimateA~ imbalance of power – the international sphere has certain countries with more power over others, which means the aff can never be justified as a contract – rational parties would never need a contract in a space with power imbalanceB~ Third Parties – the ones affected are the pharmaceutical companies and their rights, so making a contract absent their consent is illegitimate3~ Secrets are good – they are essential parts of contracts formulated by the subject | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - NC - HegelTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Devin Jiang Permissibility Negates –1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Presume neg- A. We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don’t believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories. The lack of a reason something is false does not me it is assumed to be true. B. Statements are more often false then true. If I say this pen is red, I can only prove it true in one way by demonstrating that it is indeed red, where I can prove it false in an infinite amount of ways.s Ethics must start from a conception of the subject – you must understand the self to prescribe it action. Anything else is circular by allowing moral conclusions to define the premise of subjectivity, which then can define morality.The subject is intrinsically rational and sensible. However, the distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal world is not an uncrossable bridge – freedom must be won through socially building conceptions of it, Schroeder 05:Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. AND ), they are a means by which man distinguishes himself from nature. 130 Property and legal contracts are the only medium of recognition and intersubjectivity, Schroeder 2:*bracketed for gendered language* Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. AND however, be a good pragmatic argument in favor of such a regime. Thus, the standard is consistency with abstract right.OffenseAbstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order. Violating them undermines the system through which we manifest our rights, meaning it violates our freedom as subjects and outweighs. Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) The affs international imposition of trade policies violates the legal sovereignty of states to develop trade policy. Herrmann-Pillath,Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. "Leadership, Deliberative Trade Policy, and Civil Society: The Hegelian Approach" AND political science contributions (for an overview, see Snidal and Thompson 2004). The affs international imposition of trade policies violates the legal sovereignty of states to develop trade policy. Herrmann-Pillath,Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. "Leadership, Deliberative Trade Policy, and Civil Society: The Hegelian Approach" AND political science contributions (for an overview, see Snidal and Thompson 2004). | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - T - Patent Term ExtensionTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Interpretation: The affirmative may not defend patent term extensions.Reduce means make smaller, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reduce LHP AV Violation: They use patent term extensions which are the same length. Either a~ the extension is extra T or b~ they don’t reduce at all because it’s the same length – their ev belowPandemic-related patent term extensions could be given for a period of time that the compulsory license is in force. With current pandemic projections of six months to two years for sufficient distribution, providing a patent term extension is reasonable and in line with the time period of many patent term extensions. Given that most pharmaceutical patents are prosecuted in multiple countries, this provides an incentive to participate in a limited waiver program. Vote neg:1~ Semantics –A~ jurisdiction – you don’t have the jurisdiction as per the tournament invite to vote on nontopical affs – outweighs because it constrains your ballotB~ stasis – anything else justifies the aff not talking about the topic – next it’ll be tech sharing, vaccine transfers, or ip extensions because it’s in the topic area which decks neg prep2~ Ground – all NCs and DAs are based on the incentives of long patent terms, so they destroy any comparative disadvantage3~ Preempt normal means args –A~ Normal means doesn’t license the aff to be nontopical – find a better solvency advocateB~ your own author says it’s a third option and a novel proposal – not normal nor necessary to be topicalTVA – Read any aff that only reduces IP protections for medicines – like trips plus.Fairness is a voter- it’s a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) dropping the arg on T is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s – (a)chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and ========(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.==== Competing interpretations – a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control and b~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones.T over 1ar theory – a~ lexicality b~ epistemics | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - T - ReduceTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra Interpretation: Affirmatives must defend only current intellectual property protections for medicines.Reduce means current—-not preventing future actionNaporn Popattanachai 18. This thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of Nottingham Trent University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law. "Regional Cooperation Addressing Marine Pollution from Land-Based Activities: an Interpretation of Article 207 of The Law OF THE SEA CONVENTION FOCUSING on Monitoring, Assessement, and Surveillance of the Pollution" http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/33374/1/Naporn20Popattanachai202018.pdf AND 2) procedural legal techniques and measures. They can be discussed hereunder. Violation: CX proves the plan prevents future intellectual property protections.Vote Neg:1~ Limits – they explode the topic to an infinite number of medicines because any medicines that can exist after the aff. Only my interpretation solves because it limits the topic to IPPs that currently exist. At best, the aff’s extra-T still links to all our offense since they can get extra-T advantages to solve disads and defend whatever they want, magnifying limits.2~ Semantics – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution. | 9/17/21 |
SO21 - T - Reduce v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit HZ | Judge: Alex Rivera Interpretation: The affirmative must only reduce intellectual property protections.Reduce means make smaller, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reduce LHP AV Violation: They use patent term extensions which are the same length. Either a~ the extension is extra T or b~ they don’t reduce at all because it’s the same length – their ev belowPandemic-related patent term extensions could be given for a period of time that the compulsory license is in force. With current pandemic projections of six months to two years for sufficient distribution, providing a patent term extension is reasonable and in line with the time period of many patent term extensions. Given that most pharmaceutical patents are prosecuted in multiple countries, this provides an incentive to participate in a limited waiver program. Vote neg:1~ Semantics –A~ jurisdiction – you don’t have the jurisdiction as per the tournament invite to vote on nontopical affs – outweighs because it constrains your ballotB~ stasis – anything else justifies the aff not talking about the topic – next it’ll be tech sharing, vaccine transfers, or ip extensions because it’s in the topic area which decks neg prep2~ Ground – all NCs and DAs are based on the incentives of long patent terms, so they destroy any comparative disadvantage3~ Preempt normal means args –A~ Normal means doesn’t license the aff to be nontopical – find a better solvency advocateB~ your own author says it’s a third option and a novel proposal – not normal nor necessary to be topical~TVA – Read any aff that only reduces IP protections for medicines – like trips plus.Fairness is a votera~ they concede the authority of fairness by agreeing to tournament procedures and speech timesb~ fairness is a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) dropping the arg on T is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s – (a)chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations – a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control and b~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones.T over 1ar theory – | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - T - Reduce v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Devin Jiang Interpretation: The affirmative must specify which provisions of intellectual property law regarding medicines they modify to what degree they do so.Reduce just means make smaller but doesn’t inherently specify, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reduce LHP AV TRIPS is wide-reaching in its application, so reducing generally makes no sense, Baker 04Brook K. Baker; Professor at Northeastern School of Law, member of the Health Global Access Project; 01-03-2004; "View of Arthritic Flexibilities for Accessing Medicines: Analysis of WTO Action Regarding Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health"; https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/view/17822/17992, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review; Vol. 14 No. 3, accessed 7-22-2021; JPark AND to impede registration of generic drugs even where patent bars are overcome.24 Violation: They just defend the resolution as reduce IP instead of specifying what they do to reduce.Vote neg –1~ Topic Lit – all of the literature specifies what aspects of IP law is bad – data exclusivity, minimum protection, trade secrets, compulsory licensing, etc. Absent specification, it’s impossible to engage with core topic questions because they become vague general principle statements that don’t incentivize in-depth research. That outweighs – A~ this is the first international trade law topic so we need to maximize our opportunity to learn details B~ the medicine IP issue is pressing right now due to the pandemic2~ Shiftiness – absent specification, the aff can always shift the goalposts of what they defend, which A~ kills ground because they can strategically choose what to specify in the 1ar to exclude my offense, which outweighs because it moots 100 of my offense so I always lose and B~ destroys clash since we can never engage if we’re solely debating about what to debate about C~ Irresolvability – there’s no way to resolve the round if we don’t know what we are debating about, which means the judge has to intervene so it’s the worst form of unfairness because skill is irrelevant3~ Presumption – they don’t do anything because reduction only makes sense in context of specific modifications so you can’t know what offense matters and vote neg on presumptionFairness is a votera~ they concede the authority of fairness by agreeing to tournament procedures and speech timesb~ fairness is a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.c~ every argument assumes the ability to be evaluated fairly and that the judge will take their position seriouslyDrop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) dropping the arg on T is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations –a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control andb~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - T - Reduce v4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw Interpretation: Reduce means unconditional and permanent – the aff is a suspension.Reynolds 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) AND or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Violation: WaiversVote neg:1~ Limits and ground– their model allows affs to defend anything from pandemics to Biden’s presidency— there's no universal DA since it’s impossible to know the timeframe when there won’t be IP— that explodes neg prep and leads to random timeframe of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep (innovation, collaboration, econ, ptx: all core neg literature thrown away) | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - T - Reduce v5Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: The aff must defend a permanent reduction of intellectual propertyReduce means unconditional and permanent – the aff is a suspension.Reynolds 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) AND or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Violation: WaiversVote neg:1~ Limits and ground– their model allows affs to defend anything from pandemics to Biden’s presidency— there's no universal DA since it’s impossible to know the timeframe when there won’t be IP— that explodes neg prep and leads to random timeframe of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep (innovation, collaboration, econ, ptx: all core neg literature thrown away)TVA – Read any aff that only reduces IP protections for medicines – like trips plus.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and b~ dropping the arg is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.Fairness – procedural constraintEducation – terminal impact to debate and why its fundedNo RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations –a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control andb~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - T - WaiversTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Andrew Shaw Interpretation: Affirmative plans must not advocate for actions outside of the resolution – to clarify, no extra T.Violation – The India/South Africa plan is extra-T – the TRIPs waiver includes things other than medicines, like manufacturing or protective equipment – Crowell 21:"Three Takeaways from the May 21 Revised Trips Waiver Proposal." Crowell andamp; Moring LLP, 25 May 2021, https://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/AlertsNewsletters/all/Three-Takeaways-From-the-May-21-Revised-TRIPS-Waiver-Proposal. AND for COVID-19 vaccines only, not other health products or technologies. AND Merriam Webster — medicines arehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine Now negate –~1~ Semantics first –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution~2~ Limits – you explode them since you’re extra topical – you can remove IP protections for medicines and anything else, making it impossible for the negative to create strong enough links. Two impacts:A~ Cherry-picking – you can select a trivially true aff that makes it impossible to negateB~ prep skew – you can always leverage your extra T aff to back generic neg prep or weigh the extra T impacts, which makes the neg prep burdens impossible to meetC~ Predictability – can’t predict what permutation of IP protections in addition to medicines they’ll ban.~3~ Topic Ed – we won’t get any education if they choose to write an aff that skirts the topic and functions outside of it – there are plenty of topical affs to choose that enable us to solely focus on the topic.TVA – Read any aff that only reduces IP protections for medicines – like trips plus.Drop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and b~ dropping the arg is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.Fairness – procedural constraintEducation – terminal impact to debate and why its fundedNo RVI’s –(a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and(b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations –a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control andb~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - Theory - Cant Spec MedicinesTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison EM | Judge: Parth Misra Interpretation: The affirmative debater must not specify a type of medicines that are having IPP reduced forViolation: They defend gene editingLimits – you explode them since you can specify any LAW or combination of LAW. Two impacts –A~ Cherry-picking – you can select a trivially true aff that makes it impossible to negateB~ prep skew – you can always leverage your hyper specific aff to beat back generic neg prep which makes the neg prep burdens impossible to meetC~ Kills clash bc there wont be any engagement since I can’t read generics against your hyperspecific affGroundTVA – Read as an adnvtage under whole res affFairness is a votera~ they concede the authority of fairness by agreeing to tournament procedures and speech timesb~ fairness is a procedural constraint—if they had 10 minutes to say fairness bad and I only had 1 minute to defend it, they would win because it was structurally unfair to begin with.c~ every argument assumes the ability to be evaluated fairly and that the judge will take their position seriouslyDrop the debater (a) deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris and (b) dropping the arg on T is incoherent because it is dropping the aff advocacy so its functionally the same.No RVI’s – (a) creates a chilling effect – aff is dangerous on theory because they get to prep a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize - negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse so it outweighs time skew and (b) they’re illogical - "I’m fair vote for me" doesn’t make any sense - logic comes first on theory since all args need to make sense in order to be evaluable.Competing interpretations – a~ reasonability is arbitrary since it relies upon judge opinion which outweighs since it’s terminally unfair – it relies on something completely out of control and b~ reasonability collapses into competing interpretations since you need to justify why your brightline is better than competing ones. | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/18/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/21/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/22/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/5/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/28/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/29/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/29/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/1/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/10/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/13/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/14/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/15/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
|