Lake Highland Verma Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Key | Quads | no | no |
|
| ||
| Blue Key | 4 | Carnegie Vanguard SR | Arun Mehra |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | 5 | Lexington VM | Sabrina Callahan |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | Octas | Prospect ST | JP Stuckert - Ayush Saha - Rohith Sudhakar |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | Quarters | Strake Jesuit KS | Arjan Kang - Jeong-Wan Choi - Rohit Lakshman |
|
|
| |
| Blue Key | 1 | Lexington AG | Samantha McLoughlin |
|
|
| |
| Bronx | 1 | American Heritage MR | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Bronx | 4 | Lexington AR | Andrew Lee |
|
|
| |
| Bronx | 6 | Lexington JB | Vandan Patel |
|
|
| |
| Emory | 3 | Valley SJ | Jenn Melin |
|
|
| |
| Emory | 5 | Mercer Island KS | Yoyo Lei |
|
|
| |
| Emory | 2 | Plano Independent JN | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| FFL States | 2 | Jesuit High Sc HA | Rayan Sakkar |
|
|
| |
| FFL States | Quads | all | all |
|
| ||
| FFL States | 4 | American Heritage Broward MA | R Garrison |
|
|
| |
| FFL States | 5 | American Heritage Broward EM | Luiz Bravim |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 2 | Lexington BF | Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 3 | La Salle ZW | Kassie Colon |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Milton AT | Sam Anderson |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 7 | Apple Valley NB | JP Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 1 | Golden State NS | Parth Misra |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 4 | Park City NL | Reed Weiler |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 6 | Lexington AKu | Fabrice Etienne |
|
|
| |
| Lexington | 2 | Evergreen SE | Braedon Kirkpatrick |
|
|
| |
| Lexington | 3 | West Des Moines Valley RT | Kevin Cheng |
|
|
| |
| Lexington | 6 | Newark Science AL | Andrea Reier |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 2 | Strake Jesuit JK | Faizaan Dossani |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 4 | Catonsville AT | David Salazar |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | 5 | St Agnes EH | Thomas Kim |
|
|
| |
| Palm Classic | Doubles | Harker AS | Derek Ying - Aryan Jasani - Riley Talamantes |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 2 | CR North GY | Saied Beckford |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 4 | Unionville AS | Jacob Nails |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 6 | King CP | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 1 | Peninsula RM | Matt Moorhead |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 1 | Westlake AK | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 4 | American Heritage Plantation MC | Manasi Singh |
|
|
| |
| Valley | 6 | Lexington FV | Jim Gray |
|
|
| |
| Valley Round Robin | 2 | BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Perry Beckett - Nethmin Liyanage |
|
|
| |
| Valley Round Robin | 5 | Strake Jesuit KS | Keshav Dandu - Triniti Krauss |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Harrison MB | Katy Stenner |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 5 | Strake Jesuit DA | Andrew Lee |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | Lake Nona BJ | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| hi | Triples | hi | hi |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Blue Key | 4 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Arun Mehra 1AC - China w AFC |
| Blue Key | 5 | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Sabrina Callahan 1AC - Dysfluency |
| Blue Key | Octas | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: JP Stuckert - Ayush Saha - Rohith Sudhakar 1ac - kant |
| Blue Key | Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Arjan Kang - Jeong-Wan Choi - Rohit Lakshman 1AC - Courts |
| Blue Key | 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin 1AC - Hegemony |
| Bronx | 1 | Opponent: American Heritage MR | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Baudrillard |
| Bronx | 4 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Andrew Lee 1AC - Curricular Cripstemology |
| Bronx | 6 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Vandan Patel 1AC - Democracy and WTO |
| Emory | 3 | Opponent: Valley SJ | Judge: Jenn Melin 1AC - Alienation |
| Emory | 5 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Yoyo Lei 1AC - Structural Violence - Debris and Inequality |
| Emory | 2 | Opponent: Plano Independent JN | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - lunar heritage |
| FFL States | 2 | Opponent: Jesuit High Sc HA | Judge: Rayan Sakkar 1AC - Kantian Democratic Peace |
| FFL States | 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MA | Judge: R Garrison 1AC - Util |
| FFL States | 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Luiz Bravim 1AC - Util |
| Glenbrooks | 2 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Andrew Qin 1AC - Kazakhstan |
| Glenbrooks | 3 | Opponent: La Salle ZW | Judge: Kassie Colon 1AC - Kant |
| Glenbrooks | 6 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Sam Anderson 1AC - US Prisoners |
| Glenbrooks | 7 | Opponent: Apple Valley NB | Judge: JP Stuckert 1AC - Civic Republicanism |
| Harvard | 1 | Opponent: Golden State NS | Judge: Parth Misra 1AC - Lay |
| Harvard | 4 | Opponent: Park City NL | Judge: Reed Weiler 1AC - Beller |
| Harvard | 6 | Opponent: Lexington AKu | Judge: Fabrice Etienne 1AC - Stock |
| Lexington | 2 | Opponent: Evergreen SE | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 1AC - Space Commerce w Debris and Exploration |
| Lexington | 3 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley RT | Judge: Kevin Cheng 1AC - Lockean Proviso |
| Lexington | 6 | Opponent: Newark Science AL | Judge: Andrea Reier 1AC - Space Settler Colonialism |
| Palm Classic | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JK | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 1AC - Debris |
| Palm Classic | 4 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: David Salazar 1AC - 100 Seconds |
| Palm Classic | 5 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: Thomas Kim 1AC - LEO MegaConstellations |
| Palm Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Harker AS | Judge: Derek Ying - Aryan Jasani - Riley Talamantes 1AC - Mining |
| Sunvite | 2 | Opponent: CR North GY | Judge: Saied Beckford 1AC - Lay Equality |
| Sunvite | 4 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Jacob Nails 1AC - Mega-Constellations |
| Sunvite | 6 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - Disability |
| Tournament of Champions | 1 | Opponent: Peninsula RM | Judge: Matt Moorhead 1AC - Cosmic Colonialism |
| Valley | 1 | Opponent: Westlake AK | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1AC - REvolutionary Medicine and marxism |
| Valley | 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Plantation MC | Judge: Manasi Singh 1AC - Virtue w Neg Layer Choice |
| Valley | 6 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: Jim Gray 1AC - Thin Trade Secrets |
| Valley Round Robin | 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Perry Beckett - Nethmin Liyanage 1AC - Pragmatism but not really because it was just 17 tricks in the framework a long underview |
| Valley Round Robin | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Keshav Dandu - Triniti Krauss 1AC - Pandemics - Vaccine Diplomacy - WTO Cred |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Katy Stenner 1AC - Lay Vaccines |
| Yale | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Andrew Lee 1AC - COVID Waiver - Vaccine Diplomacy Pandemics and WTO Cred |
| Yale | 3 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1AC - Util w Generics Access |
| hi | Triples | Opponent: hi | Judge: hi yeet |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: hi | Round: Triples | Opponent: hi | Judge: hi | 9/18/21 |
0 - FFL States DisclosureTournament: FFL States | Round: Quads | Opponent: all | Judge: all | 3/5/22 |
0 - Note for Blue Key PairingsTournament: Blue Key | Round: Quads | Opponent: no | Judge: no | 10/29/21 |
1 - FlagsTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin | 11/20/21 |
1 - K - DeanTournament: Bronx | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Andrew Lee The aff’s specific form of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Their engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. 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. Global capitalism and industrialization cause climate change and extinction. McDuff 19,McDuff, Phil. "Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it." The Guardian 18 (2019). AND more than preserving our reputations? What will our response to them be? Vote neg to embrace orthodox marxism, a recognition of class divides as the fundamental contradiction within society. Only that analysis can recognize societal flaws to create a revolutionary guide to praxis – it’s the unavoidable first step to resist capitalism that spills over into its collapse and allows for other revolutions. Tumino 01,~"What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More Than Ever Before", Stephen Tumino. Spring 2001. The Red Critique. http://redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm~~ RECUT LHPYA AND Communist Party, Selected Works, 45) to end social inequality forever. | 10/16/21 |
1 - K - Dean v2Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Sabrina Callahan The aff’s specific form of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Their engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. 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. Global capitalism and industrialization cause climate change and extinction. McDuff 19,McDuff, Phil. "Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it." The Guardian 18 (2019). AND more than preserving our reputations? What will our response to them be? Vote neg to embrace orthodox marxism, a recognition of class divides as the fundamental contradiction within society. Only that analysis can recognize societal flaws to create a revolutionary guide to praxis – it’s the unavoidable first step to resist capitalism that spills over into its collapse and allows for other revolutions. Tumino 01,~"What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More Than Ever Before", Stephen Tumino. Spring 2001. The Red Critique. http://redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm~~ RECUT LHPYA AND Communist Party, Selected Works, 45) to end social inequality forever. | 10/30/21 |
1 - K - Dean v3Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: TJ Maher 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. | 1/9/22 |
1 - T - FrameworkTournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westlake AK | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: The aff may only derive offense from the implementation of the resolution as a policy. To clarify, deriving offense from the reading of the aff itself or an alternative method is bad."Resolved" means enactment of a law.Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (Multi-volume set of judicial definitions). "Resolved". 1964. AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". Violation:Prefer my model of debate –1~ 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. C~ They also create a moral hazard that leads to affs only about individual self-care so even if you think this aff is answerable, the ones they incentivize are not, so assume the worst possible affirmative when weighing our impacts.2~ 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. That A~ destroys fairness because it’s impossible for me to engage with the aff, B~ outweighs on education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, C~ turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change through debate is by allowing clash or else the judge and everyone write off your substance and win as a non-T aff – allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and D~ is an independent voter that outweighs on constitutivism – clash is what differentiates between debate and speech which means that it’s a prerec to having a debate in the first place3~ Switch side debate –A~ defending different positions is key to ideological reflexivityB~ you can read the aff on the neg, which solves the affVote on fairness –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 winb~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedurec~ hacking – if they say it’s irrelevant then you can be unfair against them and vote for med~ the ballot can never alter subjectivities but it can rectify unfairnesse~ jurisdiction – the ballot says to vote for the better debater not the better cheater – that’s a metaconstraintf~ inclusion – nobody plays an unfair game – that’s lexically prior to their reading of the aff in debateCompeting interps over reasonability – a~ to avoid judge intervention and b~ framework is about the very structure of debate so they should be forced to defend theirsDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the sameNo 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 theoryTVA –A~ say that the resolutional plan collapses monopolization of information in medicine via data exclusivity or patents.B~ disads to the TVA just prove there is neg ground which turns the disads.C~ much better for aff scholarship because there are different perspectives on marxism – orthodox vs. semiocap | 9/25/21 |
1 - T - Framework v2Tournament: Bronx | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage MR | Judge: Andrew Shaw Interpretation: The aff may only derive offense from the implementation of the resolution as a policy. To clarify, deriving offense from the reading of the aff itself or an alternative method is bad."Resolved" means enactment of a law.Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (Multi-volume set of judicial definitions). "Resolved". 1964. AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". The WTO is an institution made of member nations – Tarver 21:Tarver, Evan. "How Best to Define the World Trade Organization (WTO)." Investopedia, Investopedia, 15 June 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp. LHP PS AND joined in July 2016, and 25 "observer" countries and governments. Merriam-Webster defines medicines as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine Violation:Prefer my model of debate –1~ 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. C~ They also create a moral hazard that leads to affs only about individual self-care so even if you think this aff is answerable, the ones they incentivize are not, so assume the worst possible affirmative when weighing our impacts.2~ 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. That A~ destroys fairness because it’s impossible for me to engage with the aff, B~ outweighs on education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, C~ turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change through debate is by allowing clash or else the judge and everyone write off your substance and win as a non-T aff – allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and D~ is an independent voter that outweighs on constitutivism – clash is what differentiates between debate and speech which means that it’s a prerec to having a debate in the first place3~ Switch side debate –A~ defending different positions is key to ideological reflexivityB~ you can read the aff on the neg, which solves the affVote on fairness –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 winb~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedurec~ hacking – if they say it’s irrelevant then you can be unfair against them and vote for med~ the ballot can never alter subjectivities but it can rectify unfairnesse~ jurisdiction – the ballot says to vote for the better debater not the better cheater – that’s a metaconstraintf~ inclusion – nobody plays an unfair game – that’s lexically prior to their reading of the aff in debateCompeting interps over reasonability – a~ to avoid judge intervention and b~ framework is about the very structure of debate so they should be forced to defend theirsDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the sameNo 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 | 10/15/21 |
1 - T - Framework v3Tournament: Bronx | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Andrew Lee Interpretation: The aff may only defend the resolution as a policy. To clarify, they must defend the "Resolved: The member nations of World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.""Resolved" means enactment of a law.Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (Multi-volume set of judicial definitions). "Resolved". 1964. AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". The WTO is an institution made of member nations – Tarver 21:Tarver, Evan. "How Best to Define the World Trade Organization (WTO)." Investopedia, Investopedia, 15 June 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp. LHP PS AND joined in July 2016, and 25 "observer" countries and governments. Merriam-Webster defines medicines as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine Violation:Prefer my model of debate –1~ 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. C~ They also create a moral hazard that leads to affs only about individual self-care so even if you think this aff is answerable, the ones they incentivize are not, so assume the worst possible affirmative when weighing our impacts.2~ 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. That A~ destroys fairness because it’s impossible for me to engage with the aff, B~ outweighs on education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, C~ turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change through debate is by allowing clash or else the judge and everyone write off your substance and win as a non-T aff – allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and D~ is an independent voter that outweighs on constitutivism – clash is what differentiates between debate and speech which means that it’s a prerec to having a debate in the first place3~ Switch side debate –A~ defending different positions is key to ideological reflexivity and generating real, pragmatic solutions to problemsB~ you can read the aff on the neg, which solves the affVote on fairness –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 winb~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedurec~ hacking – if they say it’s irrelevant then you can be unfair against them and vote for med~ the ballot can never alter subjectivities but it can rectify unfairnesse~ jurisdiction – the ballot says to vote for the better debater not the better cheater – that’s a metaconstraintf~ inclusion – nobody plays an unfair game – that’s lexically prior to their reading of the aff in debateCompeting interps over reasonability – a~ to avoid judge intervention and b~ framework is about the very structure of debate so they should be forced to defend theirsDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the sameNo 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 theoryTVA – ip hurts medicinal access for people w disabilities or pharma exploits people | 10/16/21 |
1 - Theory - A Prioris BadTournament: Valley Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Perry Beckett - Nethmin Liyanage | 9/24/21 |
1 - Theory - Cant Say 1AR Theory Legit, DTD, Highest Layer, and no 2NR I-MeetsTournament: Valley Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Perry Beckett - Nethmin Liyanage Interpretation: The aff may not say that 1ar theory is legitimate, drop the debater, and highest layer while denying 2nr I meet arguments.Vote neg for1~ infinite abuse2~ norming3~ only eval the counterinterpA~ indictB~ normFairness –A~ testingB~ jurisdictionC~ hackingDtd –CiNo rvi | 9/24/21 |
1 - Theory - Declare BracketsTournament: Harvard | Round: 4 | Opponent: Park City NL | Judge: Reed Weiler Interp: Debaters may not insert brackets in their evidence without a note in either the citation or the tag that the evidence is bracketed.Violation:1AC Beller 1 AND quantities. Formal and informal techniques, from double-entry bookkeeping and racialization 1~ Ev Ethics2~ Strat skew | 2/19/22 |
1 - Theory - Must Meet Disclosure InterpsTournament: Blue Key | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Sabrina Callahan Interpretation: Debaters must meet their own disclosure interpretations.
Violation: they didn’t disclose the aff ever, so definitely not 10 minutes after pairings1~ lying2~ reciprocity3~ norming4~ accessibiliity5~ clash | 10/30/21 |
1 - Theory - Must Meet Disclosure Interps v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: TJ Maher Interp: Debaters must meet their disclosure interps.
1~ lying2~ norming | 1/9/22 |
JF22 - CP - ADRTournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Yoyo Lei In the status quo, active debris removal is possible because private entities aren’t allowed to appropriate objects. However, active debris removal, not prevention, is the only way to solve debris, Jakhu 17:Jakhu, R. S., and Pelton, J. N. (Eds.). (2017). Global Space Governance: an international study. Springer International Publishing. pg 332-5 AND Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS) or the SWF. Thus the counterplan: private appropriation of outer space except for the appropriation of debris is unjust – everything else is commons like the aff. Only private appropriation can solve through economic incentive, which is key to removal, Rhimbassen et al 19::Maria Lucas-Rhimbassen*, Cristiana Santos*, George Antony Long, Lucien Rapp* 2019, "Conceptual model for a profitable return on investment from space debris as abiotic space resource" https://chaire-sirius.eu/documents/c798f8-eucass-fp0602-1906190421.pdf AND , a new legal regime is proposed for the exploitation of these resources. Private actors can’t appropriate space objects now, meaning that this form of recycling is impossible. This is uniquely bad – public actors like NASA have already said they’re not going to do ADR: Rhimbassen et al 2:Maria Lucas-Rhimbassen*, Cristiana Santos*, George Antony Long, Lucien Rapp* 2019, "Conceptual model for a profitable return on investment from space debris as abiotic space resource" https://chaire-sirius.eu/documents/c798f8-eucass-fp0602-1906190421.pdf AND difficult, which may deter OOS efforts and ADR initiatives such as recyclers. | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - CP - KesslerTournament: Sunvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Jacob Nails 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 in order to avoid collisions.Mike Wall, 11/15/21 AND the tech end up outpacing the problem, for all of our sakes. | 1/8/22 |
JF22 - DA - ChinaTournament: Lexington | Round: 2 | Opponent: Evergreen SE | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick The private space industry is the only thing preventing Chinese dominance of outer space – they’ve already copied SpaceX’s innovationsBerger 21 AND constancy of purpose and mimicking of Western strengths will overcome this head start. Chinese dominance would allow them to monopolize lunar Helium-3 and control the world’s economy.Bilder 10 AND rationale for their commitment to programs to establish national stations on the Moon. That dominance becomes self-reinforcing and controls the I/L to every claimed existential threatIncluding climate change, asteroids, space colonization, nuclear war, and global warming. AND modifying the Earth’s weather using satellites to slow the effects of climate change. Primacy and allied commitments solve arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ AND Russian and Chinese modernization efforts are now creating a far more competitive environment. | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - DA - Space-Based Solar PowerTournament: Sunvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Jacob Nails 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 December 17: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). | 1/8/22 |
JF22 - DA - StarlinkTournament: Sunvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Jacob Nails SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, which are megaconstellations, have already seen a beta rollout and are on path for delivery by 2022 – Supan 21:Supan, Joe. "Starlink Wait Times Extended to Late 2022 to Early 2023." Allconnect, 8 Nov. 2021, https://www.allconnect.com/blog/starlink-delays-service-expansion-to-2022. LHP GB + LHP PS AND area" — but you shouldn’t plan on using it for a while. Starlink is coming now – but the aff bans it –First, Starlink is crucial to the democratization of access to high quality and reliable internet connections worldwide – laundry list of impacts – Holden 21:Holden, Andrew. "Are Starlink Satellites the Solution to Rural Internets Setbacks? ." Ohio Ag Manager, 9 Apr. 2021, https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/2021/04/09/are-starlink-satellites-the-solution-to-rural-internets-setbacks/. LHP GB + LHP PS AND with better internet access and Starlink is on its way to providing it. Second, United States military readiness increasingly depends upon reliable internet and satellite connections in remote areas – the Army has already inked a deal with SpaceX.Sandra Erwin, 05/26/2020 AND links so data can be brought down to its desired point of entry. Military readiness solves every threat—-leadership ensures military overmatch but decline emboldens rivals and causes miscalc and arms races that escalate.Hal Brands 18. Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Ph.D. in history from Yale University. "Chapter 6: Does America Have Enough Hard Power?" American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump; pp. 129-133. AND to its military dominance than it has for at least a quarter century. | 1/8/22 |
JF22 - DA - Xi LashoutTournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Yoyo Lei 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. | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - DA - Xi Lashout v2Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Golden State NS | Judge: Parth Misra 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. | 2/18/22 |
JF22 - K - AnarchismTournament: Emory | Round: 3 | Opponent: Valley SJ | Judge: Jenn Melin The state occasionally subverts capital in the name of stabilizing the overall system. Do not be deceived—the only way to get rid of capitalism is to leave the state. Laursen 21Laursen, E., 2021. The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State. pg 109-111 AND capital. To get rid of capitalism requires getting rid of the State. 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, 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! | 1/28/22 |
JF22 - K - Anarchism v2Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: David Salazar You’re either with the state or against it – the aff’s method of reform through the state cements loyalty and enables the state to test the possible limits of violence, Laursen 21,Laursen, E., 2021. The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State. pg 64-68 AND , and capitalist economies themselves become more complex and more difficult to manage. The evocation of common heritage of "mankind" always excludes those who are the constitutive excluded—mechanisms like the aff multilateralism 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 Mag, 12 Mar. 2018, https://reallifemag.com/event-horizon/. AND givens, the most persistent and damning of them being contact as conquest. 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 outside the state, BevenseeBevensee, 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 state occasionally subverts capital in the name of stabilizing the overall system. Do not be deceived—the only way to get rid of capitalism is to get rid of the state.Laursen, E., 2021. The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State The Operating System An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State. pg 109-111 AND capital. To get rid of capitalism requires getting rid of the State. Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is currently happening – Earth is doomed to climate change, but we can escape, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. The alternative is an anarchist space program – anarchists leave the Earth to establish new colonies free of capitalist exploitation. The aff makes this impossible by banning private appropriation. Revolution on earth is doomed, and through the alternative we are imagining utopia that exists outside the state, a form of anti-statae rhetoric, Debord 2020,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! | 2/13/22 |
JF22 - K - DeanTournament: Harvard | Round: 4 | Opponent: Park City NL | Judge: Reed Weiler 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 entire aff positions the World Computer as about information but platform capitalism is MATERIAL – crises are not algorithms but rather material realities for people – that precludes resistance which has to be done by real people, Jones 21,Jones, Phil. (Phil Jones is a researcher for the think tank Autonomy. He regularly writes for publications such as the London Review of Books, the Guardian, the New Statesman and Novara Media). Work Without the Worker: Labour in the Age of Platform Capitalism. Verso Books, 2021. LHP AB AND to search for another task, workers constantly oscillate between the two states. 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:JODI DEAN, January 18, 2019, "Capitalism is the End of the World" https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/end-of-world LHP AV AND lose our comrades. The fact of an end should not forestall beginning. 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. | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - K - Settler ColonialismTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 1 | Opponent: Peninsula RM | Judge: Matt Moorhead The 1AC’s model of debate and discourse is structured on the erasure of indigenous bodies and epistemologies. Settler colonialism is a structure not an event that infiltrates the status quo on every level. Every move we, as settlers, take on indigenous land for "well-being" is really just to hide the project of ongoing colonialism in attempt to forget the past, justifying settler moves to innocence that require slightly "recognizing" indigenous communities to mask our guilt. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the best methodology that actively resists the project of settler colonialism. Only through the resistance of settler colonialism can we achieve the goodness they will talk about – its form over content – Shaw 20:Shaw, Devin Z., ~Devin Zane Shaw teaches philosophy at Douglas College, British Columbia. He is author of several books, including Philosophy of Antifascism: Punching Nazis and Fighting White Supremacy (Rowman and Littlefield International, 2020).~ "The Politics of the Blockade" (February, 2020). LHP PS AND our future. The ques-tion is: where do you stand? Don’t be fooled by the aff’s claims to anti-capitalism—all they do is trade globalist capitalist exploitation for mercantilist capitalist exploitation. Private entities don’t need to appropriate themselves if they can rely on the colonial state to do it for them; the aff only dooms us to replicate the logic of the railroad, where the colonial state did the appropriating of indigenous lands to hand them over for financialization as a way to reinforce whiteness – they link they subsume unregulated private for "effective commercialization" via "public-private partnerships". Gal 21The Interstellar Railroad, or Speculation and Shareholder Whiteness in the Space Economy Réka PatrÃcia Gál April 14, 2021 AND , and whiteness in interstellar space, and speculate towards a better future? 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 Mag, 12 Mar. 2018, https://reallifemag.com/event-horizon/. AND givens, the most persistent and damning of them being contact as conquest. The alternative is to make space for indigenous futurist reimagining of the relationship between the NDN and the state. It’s a prerequisite to any reconceptualization of land ownership and requires the capability to appropriate space making it mutually exclusive to the aff. The aff reinforces the settler view of relation to land with their flattened understanding of appropriation. Cornum 15.Cornum, Lou. "The Space NDN’s Star Map" January 26, 2015, https://thenewinquiry.com/the-space-ndns-star-map/ AND the space NDN reveals the myriad ways of relating to land beyond property. | 4/23/22 |
JF22 - NC - LibertarianismTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: CR North GY | Judge: Saied Beckford NCFrameworkIn 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.The 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. 2~ Epistemic uncertainty requires the minimal state – only the libertarian utopia 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.) 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 self-ownership justifies the appropriation of property – our freedom necessitates being able to set and pursue external things as our ends, including exercising our rights on property. Restricting this arbitrarily limits our freedom which is unjust.Feser 3, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND , with all the egalitarian mischief-making the proviso has made possible. | 1/8/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Jacob Nails 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.The 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.Negate –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 AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 2~ Self-ownership justifies the appropriation of property – our freedom necessitates being able to set and pursue external things as our ends, including exercising our rights on property.Feser 2, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND , with all the egalitarian mischief-making the proviso has made possible. | 1/8/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v3Tournament: Lexington | Round: 2 | Opponent: Evergreen SE | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick 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.The 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. Negate – 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 | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v4Tournament: Emory | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano Independent JN | Judge: Andrew Shaw Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. 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. Negate –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 | 2/12/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v5Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JK | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. 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.The 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. Negate –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 AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 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.) AND in a state of nature, provided the basis for the civil state. | 2/12/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v6Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: Thomas Kim Permissibility negates – unjust and prohibit imply an prohibition but permissibility is a lack of prohibition which means the neg met their burden of disproving the aff.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true – a pen can be red in only one way b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.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.The 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. Negate –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 AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 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.) AND in a state of nature, provided the basis for the civil state. | 2/13/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v7Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Harker AS | Judge: Derek Ying - Aryan Jasani - Riley Talamantes Permissibility negates – should in the plan implies an obligation but permissibility is a lack of obligation which means the neg met their burden of disproving the aff.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true – a pen can be red in only one way but it can be not red in an infinite amount of wayys b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.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.The 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.Prefer the standard –1~ 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. 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. Since obligations arise from a universal identity, they must be the same for all.Christine M. Korsgaard, 1992 AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. 3~ 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. Negate –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 AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 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.) AND in a state of nature, provided the basis for the civil state. 3~ Taxation is theft – the plan creates royalties on the profits, which is a form of stealing that is bad because it would nullify the notion of property that stealing presupposes if everyone stole. | 2/15/22 |
JF22 - NC - Libertarianism v8Tournament: Harvard | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington AKu | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Permissibility negates – should in the plan implies an obligation but permissibility is a lack of obligation which means the neg met their burden of disproving the aff.Presumption negates – a~ statements are more often false than true – a pen can be red in only one way but it can be not red in an infinite amount of wayys b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.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.The 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 https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir'13'03'4'otteson.pdf AND in the absence of invasions or threats of invasions, it is inactive. Thus, the standard is consistency with a libertarian state.Prefer the standard –1~ 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 https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~~korsgaar/CMK.MA1.pdf AND , is better captured by the third theory I am about to describe. 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. Since obligations arise from a universal identity, they must be the same for all.Christine M. Korsgaard, 1992 AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. Negate –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 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 LHP AV AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 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.) AND in a state of nature, provided the basis for the civil state. | 2/20/22 |
JF22 - NC - RodlTournament: Emory | Round: 3 | Opponent: Valley SJ | Judge: Jenn Melin Action theory comes first –1. States of affairs only care about ethical decision making insofar as there is an entity and an action that is coherent enough to achieve that normative end. Every decision made is an action, even inaction which means the NC is inescapable.2. Culpability – To conceive yourself as the cause of your actions, an analysis of how one acts is a priori – otherwise we would never hold agents accountable since they would claim they were not an agent capable of generating an action with normative force.I contend the aff violates the principles of action theory.1.The resolution is a passive statement – it doesn’t prescribe action but rather makes a value statement about justice so there’s no action to judge the morality of the aff by and u negate.2. The aff can’t generate an atemporal obligation because it is contingent on empirical circumstances that the aff is currently taking place in (ie uniqueness) | 1/28/22 |
JF22 - NC - UtilTournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley RT | Judge: Kevin Cheng 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 ed | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - NC - Util v2Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Golden State NS | Judge: Parth Misra 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. 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) | 2/18/22 |
JF22 - T - Appropriation vDebrisTournament: Palm Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JK | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Interpretation: The aff may not defend that appropriation via production of space debris is unjust."Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space.TIMOTHY 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 Prefer –1~ Ground – A~ they can fiat that a bad use of space is unjust tautologically or functionally trivially true like "appropriation by creating planetary bombs out of asteroids is unjust" – that’s not just hypothetical because there’s no nonarbitrary brightline and this aff is literally banning producing things that are non-functional and have no positive effects – hold the line. B~ it means the aff can skirt uniqueness conditions by just saying it’s unjust to DO something, which guts research skills and neg ground2~ Topic literature and precision –A~ use is not the same thing as appropriation.Jakhu, R. S., and Pelton, J. N. (Eds.). (2017). Global Space Governance: an international study. Springer International Publishing. pg 123 AND stations and facilities ~Lee and Eylward, 2005, p. 100~. B~ OST intent proves a distinction between objects brought to space are not appropriation,Michelle L.D. Hanlon, LLM Air and Space Law @ McGill, JD magna cum laude Georgetown Law Center, BA Political Science @ Yale, ‘18, "The Space Review: Our fear of "heritage" imperils our future," No Publication, https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3450/1 AND equipment is strewn. Surely this is not the intent of the law? Putting things in space is not the core lit – it’s a question of property OF space not property IN space – otherwise Apollo Missions would have violated the OST. Precision outweighs – absent a hard limit, there’s no basis for negative preparation, decking a stasis point that’s key to clash and engagement. It’s also most jurisdictional since the tournament invite requires you to vote in context of the topic3~ Philosophy education – they sidestep any attempt to link into a property NC because they can claim they indict the use not the ownership. That’s core neg ground on an unlimited topic and key to in-depth philosophical education that’s constitutive of LD and a prerequisite to determining whether other voters are justified.Fairness | 2/12/22 |
JF22 - T - BanTournament: Palm Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JK | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Interp: The 1AC plan text must defend a ban, not a regulation.Unjust merely implies immorality, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unjust LHP AV Violation: They defend a fee on appropriation. No evidence in the aff proves no solvency advocate and should strengthen our abuse and makes explosiion of limtits and topic literature violations inevitable because they have no groundingVote neg1~ground – the plan still allows appropriation which means they can skirt all appropriation good ground, which is our only offense on this topic.2~ Precision – they’re not topical independently because they still allow appropriation and change nothing about that itself. | 2/12/22 |
JF22 - T - FrameworkTournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: TJ Maher Interpretation: The affirmative must only defend the resolution or a subset. To clarify, you must defend "Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.""Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space.TIMOTHY 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 Merriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS Violation: They don’t defend the topic – just dysfluency. This topic does NOT require fiat or state action – just endorsement of a moral statement. If they can say "killing is immoral," then they can affirm the resolution.Prefer my model of debate –1~ 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. C~ They also create a moral hazard that leads to affs only about individual self-care so even if you think this aff is answerable, the ones they incentivize are not, so assume the worst possible affirmative when weighing our impacts.2~ 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. That A~ destroys fairness because it’s impossible for me to engage with the aff, B~ outweighs on education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, C~ turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change through debate is by allowing clash or else the judge and everyone write off your substance and win as a non-T aff – allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and D~ is an independent voter that outweighs on constitutivism – clash is what differentiates between debate and speech which means that it’s a prerec to having a debate in the first place3~ Switch side debate –A~ defending different positions is key to ideological reflexivityB~ you can read the aff on the neg, which solves the affVote on fairness –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 winb~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedurec~ hacking – if they say it’s irrelevant then you can be unfair against them and vote for med~ the ballot can never alter subjectivities but it can rectify unfairnesse~ jurisdiction – the ballot says to vote for the better debater not the better cheater – that’s a metaconstraintf~ inclusion – nobody plays an unfair game – that’s lexically prior to their reading of the aff in debateCompeting interps over reasonability – a~ to avoid judge intervention and b~ framework is about the very structure of debate so they should be forced to defend theirsDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the sameNo 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 theoryTVA –A~ Private appropriation is root cause of disabilityB~ billionaires leaving us to die is bad | 1/9/22 |
JF22 - T - Institutional ActionTournament: Harvard | Round: 4 | Opponent: Park City NL | Judge: Reed Weiler Interp: The aff must defend a policy action that bans private appropriation of outer space. To clarify, it can be a policy by any institution, including the state, that has official bylaws."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 – Precision –A~ JurisdictionB~ Stasis Point3—-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 - T - Must FiatTournament: Emory | Round: 3 | Opponent: Valley SJ | Judge: Jenn Melin Interp: The 1AC plan text must defend a policy action."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.Fairness 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 offense. I know you don’t like theory but 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 | 1/28/22 |
JF22 - T - Must Not FiatTournament: Emory | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano Independent JN | Judge: Andrew Shaw Interpretation: The affirmative may not fiat an action – they may only defend that private appropriation is immoral.Unjust merely implies immorality, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unjust LHP AV 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~ Independently, non-state fiat a voting issue – guts core circumvention arguments that are key neg ground and prevents education about the intricacies of policymaking4~ 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 | 2/12/22 |
JF22 - T - Must Not Fiat v2Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: Thomas Kim Interpretation: The affirmative must not defend a policy option. To clarify, the affirmative may not fiat states ban appropriation.1~ Resolved: MWhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve 2~ Unjust merely implies immorality, Cambridge:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unjust LHP AV Violation: They doVote 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 –2~ 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. hey 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 disads3~ TVA –A~ 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 LDB~ defend megaconstellations are unjust under util – that’s better for you too since it eliminates circumvention debatesFDTDNo RVICI | 2/13/22 |
JF22 - T - PositiveTournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Yoyo Lei 1~ Interp – Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary.Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/ Elmer 2~ Violation – The Aff is a positive action – it creates a new concept for Space i.e. the treating of Space as a "Global Commons".3~ Standards –a~ Limits – making the topic bi-directional explodes predictability – it means that Aff’s can both increase non-exist property regimes in space AND decrease appropriation by private actors – makes the topic untenable.b~ Ground – wrecks Neg Generics – we can’t say appropriation good since the 1AC can create new views on Outer Space Property Rights that circumvent our Links since they can say "Global Commons" approach solves.4~ TVA – just defend that space appropriation is bad.a~ Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability and there’s no arg to drop.b~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.c~ No RVI’s - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.D~ fairness is a voter – it’s key in a competitive activity and to testing that arguments were rigorously tested | 1/29/22 |
JF22 - T - Positive v2Tournament: Palm Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: David Salazar 1~ Interp – Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary.Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/ Elmer 2~ Violation – The Aff is a positive action – it creates a new concept for Space i.e. the leasing of orbit by the UN.3~ Standards –a~ Precision – they eliminate a topical stasis point, justifying the aff talking about anything which explodes neg prep burden and nullifies any engagement. Nowhere does the resolution prescribe active action, so there’s no basis for reasonable negative ground – hold the line.b~ Limits – making the topic bi-directional explodes predictability – it means that Aff’s can both increase non-exist property regimes in space AND decrease appropriation by private actors – makes the topic untenable.c~ Ground – wrecks Neg Generics – we can’t say appropriation good since the 1AC can create new views on Outer Space Property Rights that circumvent our Links since they can say UN leasing approach solves.4~ TVA – just defend that megaconstellation appropriation is bad with no leasing.a~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires fair evaluation and rigorous testing – otherwise we can’t test if your arguments are trueb~ Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability and we can’t get new 2nr da’s so the debate’s permanently skewed.c~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.d~ No RVI’s - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive, which is a litmus test for argumentation | 2/13/22 |
JF22 - T - PrivateTournament: Lexington | Round: 2 | Opponent: Evergreen SE | Judge: Braedon Kirkpatrick T – PrivateInterpretation: The aff may only prohibit appropriation by private entities. Collins:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/private-entity LHP AV By means the agent appropriating is private entities,Collins:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/by LHP AV AND support the rapid development of the private space commerce industry in the United States Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis pointB~ jurisdiction2~ Ground – private good is the lit3~ Vote neg on presumption – the aff prohibits public space appropriation too then obviously if the US is appropriating by giving it to private companies, it would also be by using it itselfFairness, dtd, no rvi, ci | 1/15/22 |
MA22 - K - DeanTournament: FFL States | Round: 2 | Opponent: Jesuit High Sc HA | Judge: Rayan Sakkar The aff’s reliance on finding "objective" information through free journalism traps us in a fantasy that empowers the oppressors – we believe we are contributing to politics but in reality are just excusing our own lack of action by endlessly consuming "objective" information and re-entrench the system that pacifies us and enables capitalism – the only way to catalyze action is by focusing on advocacy, DEAN 01~Jodi Dean. "Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics." Cultural Politics, vol. 1, issue 1, 2005.~ LHP JW DEAN 01, AND produced (and deployed) in the service of prevailing power relations.' Capitalism is a death cult – the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs. Only a unified movement can solve, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best engages in the politics of the comrade – one that is oriented toward a shared communist horizon. Anything else means capitalism will co-opt movements. "Objectivity" is really a way for the press to halt the 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 alternative is to act even in the presence of unknowingness. We can either react to dominating structures by constantly deferring action in favor of gaining more information – gaining the secret – or we advocate for what is necessary even without complete knowledge about the outcomes. The aff’s discourse replicates capitalist logic where they perpetuate the belief that you should not act when you don’t know the absolute outcome, which functions as justifications for capitalism, Dean~Jodi Dean. "A Politics of Avoidance: The Limits of Weak Ontology." n.d. jdeanicite.typepad.com/i'cite/files/butler'and'ontology.doc~ LHP JW AND we are to oppose the market and religious fundamentalism threatening the world today. | 3/5/22 |
MA22 - NC - SubjectivityTournament: FFL States | Round: 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MA | Judge: R Garrison MA22 – NC – Subjectivity1NCFrameworkI negate.First, this debate is not a question of whether objectivity as an ideal is good – it’s about whether objectivity should be the guiding principle. Advocacy does not mean nonresponsiveness to truth; rather, you are bringing your best judgement and the things you think are valuable to shape reporting.Second, the aff may show objectivity is important but that does not show the free press as a whole ought to prioritize it. For example, in the UK, the BBC has hard objectivity guidelines and they’re publicly funded, providing a universal source of information while the rest of the free press is advocacy.I value democratic ideals. Democracies cannot be bound by a single conception of truth. All things should always be subject to contestation or the structure of democracy itself will always be eroded.Accordingly, value criterion is maintaining an open marketplace of ideas. Prefer my criterion for two reasons:First, only a press that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate.Second, enabling the acceptance of views is key to maintaining legitimacy and freedom. Otherwise, political institutions can always silence opposition, violating freedom and democracy.Contention 1 is subjectivityFirst, even if we achieve something approximating objectivity, there will be a bias in terms of what they choose to report. This agenda setting power has no objective metric that’s not dependent on who is assessing what to report. Therefore, appeals to objectivity will always hide the real biases. Forefronting advocacy ensure the public knows what those biases are. This makes the process a shared conversation which is easier to validate.Second, democracy as a procedure should never appeal to the idea objectivity. there’s no correct idea of democracy, so only advocacy instead of fake objectivity is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Political theorist Chantal Mouffe writes in 2000:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. Contention 2 is social justiceFirst, if objectivity is prioritized, it’s unfair and will always targets minorities as their "objectivity" is always in question, Williams 20:Williams, Kat. "Objectivity In Journalism: Ethical Requirement Or Impediment?." The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Media Engagement. July 15, 2020. Web. Accessed February 12, 2022. https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/85-Objectivity-in- News-Case-Study.pdf. AND if the journalist doesn’t outright put forth their beliefs (Li, 2020). Second, the ideal of objectivity is not the neutral view from nowhere it claims to be – instead, it normalizes the status quo, preventing radical change, Raeijmaekers writes in 2017:Raeijmaekers D, ~Daniëlle Raeijmaekers, Department of Communication Studies, University of Antwerp~ Maeseele P. In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism. 2017;18(6):647-663. doi:10.1177/1464884915614244 LHP AV DOA: March 4, 2022 AND the way to break boundaries and shape new understandings (Jones, 2013). Third, Advocacy journalism has a long history of strengthening movements for social justice. Frio 21:Froio, Nicole. "How Journalists Are Challenging Ideas Of Objectivity While Empowering Their Communities." Current. May 20, 2021. Web. February 12, 2022. https://current.org/2021/05/how-journalists-are-challenging-ideas-of-objectivity- while-empowering-their-communities/. AND risked his job in the system to highlight the shortcomings of traditional newsgathering. | 3/6/22 |
MA22 - NC - Subjectivity v2Tournament: FFL States | Round: 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Luiz Bravim MA22 – NC – Subjectivity1NCFrameworkI negate.First, this debate is not a question of whether objectivity as an ideal is good – it’s about whether objectivity should be the guiding principle. Advocacy does not mean nonresponsiveness to truth; rather, you are bringing your best judgement and the things you think are valuable to shape reporting.Second, the aff may show objectivity is important but that does not show the free press as a whole ought to prioritize it. For example, in the UK, the BBC has hard objectivity guidelines and they’re publicly funded, providing a universal source of information while the rest of the free press is advocacy.I value democratic ideals. Democracies cannot be bound by a single conception of truth. All things should always be subject to contestation or the structure of democracy itself will always be eroded.Accordingly, value criterion is maintaining an open marketplace of ideas. Prefer my criterion for two reasons:First, only a press that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate.Second, enabling the acceptance of views is key to maintaining legitimacy and freedom. Otherwise, political institutions can always silence opposition, violating freedom and democracy.Contention 1 is subjectivityFirst, even if we achieve something approximating objectivity, there will be a bias in terms of what they choose to report. This agenda setting power has no objective metric that’s not dependent on who is assessing what to report. Therefore, appeals to objectivity will always hide the real biases. Forefronting advocacy ensure the public knows what those biases are. This makes the process a shared conversation which is easier to validate.Second, democracy as a procedure should never appeal to the idea objectivity. there’s no correct idea of democracy, so only advocacy instead of fake objectivity is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Political theorist Chantal Mouffe writes in 2000:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. Contention 2 is social justiceFirst, if objectivity is prioritized, it’s unfair and will always targets minorities as their "objectivity" is always in question, Williams 20:Williams, Kat. "Objectivity In Journalism: Ethical Requirement Or Impediment?." The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Media Engagement. July 15, 2020. Web. Accessed February 12, 2022. https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/85-Objectivity-in- News-Case-Study.pdf. AND if the journalist doesn’t outright put forth their beliefs (Li, 2020). Second, the ideal of objectivity is not the neutral view from nowhere it claims to be – instead, it normalizes the status quo, preventing radical change, Raeijmaekers writes in 2017:Raeijmaekers D, ~Daniëlle Raeijmaekers, Department of Communication Studies, University of Antwerp~ Maeseele P. In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism. 2017;18(6):647-663. doi:10.1177/1464884915614244 LHP AV DOA: March 4, 2022 AND the way to break boundaries and shape new understandings (Jones, 2013). Third, Advocacy journalism has a long history of strengthening movements for social justice. Frio 21:Froio, Nicole. "How Journalists Are Challenging Ideas Of Objectivity While Empowering Their Communities." Current. May 20, 2021. Web. February 12, 2022. https://current.org/2021/05/how-journalists-are-challenging-ideas-of-objectivity- while-empowering-their-communities/. AND risked his job in the system to highlight the shortcomings of traditional newsgathering. | 3/6/22 |
ND21 - CP - Essential Workers vCourtsTournament: Blue Key | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Arjan Kang - Jeong-Wan Choi - Rohit Lakshman Guess what, your solvency advocate says that the CIL right to strike is limited. Prefer to ~their evidence~ because A) post-dates, b) rest of solvency depends, c) explains specific limitations. 1AC BRUDNEY 21The international right to strike is far from absolute. It may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, or even prohibited, pursuant to national regulation. For a start, Convention 87 provides that members of the armed forces and the police may be excluded from the scope of the Convention in general, including the right to strike.57 In addition, applications by the CFA and CEACR have concluded that three distinct forms of substantive restriction on the right to strike are compatible with Convention 87. 1. Substantive Limitations One important restriction applies to certain categories of public servants. The CEACR and CFA have made clear that public employees generally enjoy the same right to strike as their counterparts in the private sector; at the same time, in order to ensure continuity of functions in the three branches of government, this right may be restricted for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State.58 Examples include officials performing tasks that involve the administration of necessary executive branch functions or that relate to the administration of justice. Each country hasits own approach to classifying public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. When considering the international right under Convention 87, some public servant exceptions seem clearly applicable, such as officials auditing or collecting internal revenues, customs officers, or judges and their close judicial assistants. 59 Some public servant exceptions seem inapplicable, such as teachers, or public servants in State-owned commercial enterprises.60 Whether public servants are exercising authority in the name of the State can be a close question under particular national law, one on which the CEACR and CFA have offered encouragement and guidance,61 as has the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).62 A second equally important restriction on the right to strike involves essential services in the strict sense of the term. This is an area in which both the CEACR and CFA have developed a detailed set of applications and guidelines. 63 The two committees consider that essential services, for the purposes of restricting or prohibiting the right to strike, are only those "the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population."64 This definition of essential services "in the strict sense of the term" stems from the idea that "essential services" as a limitation on the right to strike would lose its meaning if statutes or judicial decisions defined those services in too broad a manner. 65 The interruption of services that cause or have the potential to cause economic hardships—even serious economic hardships—is not ordinarily sufficient to qualify the interrupted service as essential. Indeed, the very purpose of a strike is to interrupt services or production and thereby cause a degree of economic hardship. That is the leverage workers can exercise; it is what allows a strike to be effective in bringing the parties to the table and securing a negotiated settlement. The two ILO supervisory committees also have made clear that the essential services concept is not static in nature. Thus, a non-essential service may become essential if the strike exceeds a certain duration or extent, or as a function of the special characteristics of a country. 66 One example is that of an island State where at some point ferry transportation services become essential to bring food and medical supplies to the population.67 When examining concrete cases, the supervisory bodies have considered a range of services, both public and private, too broad to summarize here. As illustrative, the two bodies have determined that essential services in the strict sense of the term include air traffic control services, 68 telephone services, 69 prison services, firefighting services, and water and electricity services. 70 The CEACR and CFA also have identified a range of services that presumptively are deemed not to be essential in the strict sense of the term. 71 In addition, in circumstances where a total prohibition on the right to strike is not appropriate, the magnitude of impact on the basic needs of consumers or the general public, or the need for safe operation of facilities, may justify introduction of a negotiated minimum service.72 Such a service, however, must truly be a minimum service, that is one limited to meeting the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear through the strike by a majority of workers. The third substantive restriction on the right to strike under Convention 87 relates to situations of acute national or local crisis, although only for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation.74 With respect to all three forms of substantive restriction, the CFA and CEACR have indicated that certain alternative options should be guaranteed for workers who are deprived of the right to strike. These options include impartial conciliation followed by arbitration procedures in which any awards are binding on both parties and are to be implemented in full and rapid terms.75 2. Procedural Limitations Apart from these substantive limitations, the right to strike under Convention 87 has been subject to procedural prerequisites. Legislation in numerous countries requires that advance notice of strikes be given to administrative authorities or to the employer. National laws also provide for cooling off periods and/or for mandatory conciliation and arbitration procedures before a strike may be called. The ILO supervisory committees regard such procedural requirements as compatible with the Convention so long as their aim is to facilitate bargaining and they are not "so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness."76 The CEACR, for instance, has considered that a duration of more than 60 working days as a precondition for exercising the right to strike is excessive and may undermine the right. 77 Some countries have laws providing that a strike may not be called without approval from a supermajority of workers.78 The CEACR and CFA have considered that such supermajority requirements are excessive and may unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike, especially in larger enterprises. 79 They have suggested that for any legislatively mandated pre-strike vote, the required THUS, the counterplan: The United States ought to recognize an unconditional right for workers to strike, excepting essential workers as determined by Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights* and the Committee on Freedom of Association.
Nurse strikes devastates hospitals – hurts quality of careWright 10 Sarah H. Wright July 2010 "Evidence on the Effects of Nurses' Strikes" https://www.nber.org/digest/jul10/evidence-effects-nurses-strikes (Researcher at National Bureau of Economic Research) AND nursing were more likely to fare worse in the presence of nurses' strikes. | 10/31/21 |
ND21 - Hijack - HegelTournament: Blue Key | Round: Octas | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: JP Stuckert - Ayush Saha - Rohith Sudhakar 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 Thus, that justifies a standard of consistency with materializing abstract right.Abstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order. There is no such thing as an unconditional obligation for all just governments – communal norms determine ethics, Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) | 10/31/21 |
ND21 - Hijack - Hegel v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Apple Valley NB | Judge: JP Stuckert If communal norms determine ethics, then particularism – that negates because unconditional obligations for all just governments are incoherent. Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) | 11/23/21 |
ND21 - Hijack - KantTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Apple Valley NB | Judge: JP Stuckert Kant HijackEven if they win freedom good, a Kantian noninterference view of freedom is better –1~ Arbitrary interference is one that can not accord with our reason because reason is the process of justification. Absent Kantian reason, their framework triggers permissibility because there’s no standard for what is arbitrary.Next, reason’s universality because 2+24 for everyone means that I cannot interfere with others because that would justify violating my own freedom, which is contradictory.==== 2~ Non-domination relies on a materialist account of freedom, but that’s wrong –A~ Noumenal-Phenomenal Distinction – freedom must be an uncaused cause definitionally, otherwise it would not be freedom. Thus, it must be a noumenal and not subject to deterministic laws of nature, which is the abstract, nonmaterial Kantian view of freedomB~ Collapses – material views of freedom relies on some ideal of what perfect freedom actually is or we’re measuring freedom by a changing ruler. That requires the Kantian abstraction.Negates –1~ A right to strike claims a right to a specific job, which is a positive right, Gourevitch 16 summarizes, bracketed for gendered language: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. Only negative rights are coherent. Feser Summarizes Nozick 04,Edward 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~ 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? Operates under your framework too –A~ property is how we ensure others are not dominating us – else they can arbitrarily control how we set our endsB~ contracts are a process of nonarbitrary interference because both sides consent. This frames out of all their args because anything is ok if consensual – we can waive our rights | 11/23/21 |
ND21 - K - CapTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 3 | Opponent: La Salle ZW | Judge: Kassie Colon 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. Capitalism alienates workers and destroys freedom – escaping it is a precondition to ethics. Wartenburg 82,Wartenberg, Thomas E. ""Species-being" and "human nature" in Marx." Human Studies 5.1 (1982): 77-95. AND simply in order to stay alive, and to reproduce him/herself. Extinction – capitalism causes war, violence, environmental destruction that brings an end to the world - Robinson 18:(William I., Prof. of Sociology, Global and International Studies, and Latin American Studies, @ UC-Santa Barbara, "Accumulation Crisis and Global Police State" Critical Sociology) RE AND the peoples in these spaces must be repressed by the global police state. The alternative is the comrade – one oriented toward a better future – provides the means necessary for organization to solve capitalism and create any coherent resistance movements, Dean 19:JODI DEAN, January 18, 2019, "Capitalism is the End of the World" https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/end-of-world LHP AV AND lose our comrades. The fact of an end should not forestall beginning. | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - NC - AgambenTournament: Blue Key | Round: 4 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Arun Mehra 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 | 10/30/21 |
ND21 - NC - Agamben v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Sam Anderson Truth testing –A~ juriB~ groundC~ collapsesIn order for the resolution to be true, the aff must prove that it is conceptually coherent to have an unconditional right to strike. 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 guarantee a right to strike, 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.Now 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.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 act4~ Specifically true with prisons – Guantanamo bay is literally the quintessential state of exception | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - NC - HegelTournament: Blue Key | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Arjan Kang - Jeong-Wan Choi - Rohit Lakshman 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 Thus, the standard is consistency with materializing abstract right.1~ Abstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order. There is no such thing as an unconditional obligation for all just governments – communal norms determine ethics, Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) 2~ 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? | 10/31/21 |
ND21 - NC - HobbesTournament: Blue Key | Round: Octas | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: JP Stuckert - Ayush Saha - Rohith Sudhakar 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 | 10/31/21 |
ND21 - NC - Hobbes v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Apple Valley NB | Judge: JP Stuckert 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: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 what 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 | 11/23/21 |
ND21 - NC - KantTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Andrew Qin 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 – a pen could be not red in infinite ways but red in only one b~ contradictions – would justify saying both p and not p if you knew nothing about pOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal outer freedom.Prefer –First, 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 oneSecond, performativity – an intrinsic feature to any action is the acceptance of the goodness of universal freedom, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. Vote neg –1~ A right to strike claims a right to a specific job, which is a positive right, Gourevitch 16 summarizes, bracketed for gendered language: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. Only negative rights are coherent. Feser Summarizes Nozick 04,Edward Feser ~Philosophy professor at Loyola~, On Nozick by Eric Mack, 2004, p. 36-7, Volume 8, Issue 4 Scopa This brings us to a second feature of Nozick’s conception of rights, namely that they are essentially negative. A right to X just is a right not to be hindered in using something you own, X, as you want to use it. It is not a right to have X if you don’t already own it and no one wants to give or sell it to you. Your right to your TV set is just your right not to have it damaged or taken from you against your will; it is not a right that someone should buy you a TV set. Your right to life is just the right not to be killed; it is not a right that others should provide you with what you need to live. You own your life, so no one has the right to take it from you. But by the same token, others own their lives, bodies, labor, and the things they produce with their labor, and thus no one has a right to take those things from them. In particular, you do not have the right forcibly to take, or have someone else take, other people’s resources simply because you want or need them, even if you need them to live (just as you have no right to take their body parts from them even if you needed those to live). A right to what you need in order to live would be a positive right a right to something that someone else must provide you with, as opposed to a (negative) right that someone merely refrain from doing something to you. So-called rights to welfare, health care, education, and the like would be positive rights. But there simply are and can be no such fundamental positive rights on a libertarian view. For no one has a basic right against other people that they must provide things for him; to assume otherwise is to assume, in effect, that a person at least partially owns other people’s property, including their labor, if I claim a right to education, for example, I am in effect claiming that other people must provide me with an education — it won’t just fall out of the sky, after all — which means I’m claiming a right to a part of their labor, i.e. whatever labor must go into paying the taxes that fund my state-run school. But no one has a right to anyone else’s labor — people own their own labor, and cannot morally be forced to give up some of it for others. If you want voluntarily to help me out in paying my tuition. and sign a contract saying you’ll do so, that’s one thing — in that case, I do have the right to your money, because you’ve agreed to provide it but if you don ‘t agree, I have no such right, and I and the government are stealing from you if we take your money anyway. Now many rights that people claim to have are positive rights of this sort. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, is filled with claims not only to negative rights, but also to many positive rights — rights to education, health care, even "periodic holidays with pay"! But all such claims are bogus, and the alleged "rights" pure fictions conjured out of thin air. For they conflict with the fundamental rights of self-ownership, and make people slaves to the realization of others’ desires and needs. Being essentially negative, a person’s rights function, in Nozick’s terminology, as moral side-constraints on the actions of others (1974, 28-35). Respecting others’ rights, that is, isn’t to be understood merely as one goal among others that we might seek to maximize, leaving open the possibility that violating rights in some circumstances for the sake of achieving some other good is an acceptable trade-off. Rather, one’s rights constitute a set of absolute restrictions within which all other people must behave with respect to him, and override all considerations of utility or welfare. They lay down the ground rules for our behavior towards others — telling us that, in anything we do, there are certain things we must not do. "Side constraints upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means," Nozick says; "they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent. Individuals are inviolable" (1974, 30-31). Being inviolable, their rights are also inviolable — those rights cannot be overridden for any reason. Nor, given that rights are negative, is there any danger that they might conflict, which would put their inviolability in doubt. If your having a right to X just means that I cannot interfere with your use of X, and my right to Y just means that you cannot interfere with my use of Y, then there is no conflict between our rights: All we’re required to do is to leave each other alone. But if I also claim a positive right to Z, and Z requires the use of X, then our rights inevitably will conflict, for the only way I can get Z is if you give me X. Positive rights will generally, and obviously, lead to such conflicts — surely another reason to be suspicious of them. Negative rights, however, will not. Such rights are perfectly compatible with one another, and thus with the notion that rights are inviolable.2~ 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? | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - NC - LibertarianismTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin Objective 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.2~ 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? | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - PIC - PoliceTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin 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). | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - PIC - Police v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 3 | Opponent: La Salle ZW | Judge: Kassie Colon 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). Links to your framewo – police abuse is immoral enforcement of the omnilateral will because it’s racist and treats people unequally. If it doesn’t link to their framework, their framework is repugnant and should lose. | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - T - FrameworkTournament: Blue Key | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington VM | Judge: Sabrina Callahan Interpretation: The aff may only defend the resolution as a policy. To clarify, they must defend the "Resolved: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike.""Resolved" means enactment of a law.Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (Multi-volume set of judicial definitions). "Resolved". 1964. AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". Violation: they dontPrefer my model of debate –1~ 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. C~ They also create a moral hazard that leads to affs only about individual self-care so even if you think this aff is answerable, the ones they incentivize are not, so assume the worst possible affirmative when weighing our impacts.2~ 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. That A~ destroys fairness because it’s impossible for me to engage with the aff, B~ outweighs on education since arg interaction is the only specific way we learn in debate, C~ turns their aff scholarship – the only way to create change through debate is by allowing clash or else the judge and everyone write off your substance and win as a non-T aff – allowing clash forces people to actually consider your claims and D~ is an independent voter that outweighs on constitutivism – clash is what differentiates between debate and speech which means that it’s a prerec to having a debate in the first placeVote on fairness –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 winb~ they concede its authority via speech times and tournament procedurec~ hacking – if they say it’s irrelevant then you can be unfair against them and vote for med~ the ballot can never alter subjectivities but it can rectify unfairnesse~ jurisdiction – the ballot says to vote for the better debater not the better cheater – that’s a metaconstraintf~ inclusion – nobody plays an unfair game – that’s lexically prior to their reading of the aff in debateCompeting interps over reasonability – a~ to avoid judge intervention and b~ framework is about the very structure of debate so they should be forced to defend theirsDrop the debater – a~ to deter future abuse and b~ drop the arg on T is functionally the sameNo 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 theoryTVA – disabled workers strike to disrupt production and progress | 10/30/21 |
ND21 - T - JustTournament: Blue Key | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the United States federal government 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. US HR violations don’t secure libertiesAmnesty International, 4-14-2021, "Everything you need to know about human rights in United States of America," No Publication, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ AND carrying of firearms is permitted engaged protesters, causing at least four deaths. Violation: they didPrefer –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~ 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 particular | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - T - Just v2Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 4 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Arun Mehra 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 – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluationEducation 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 | 10/30/21 |
ND21 - T - Just v3Tournament: Blue Key | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Arjan Kang - Jeong-Wan Choi - Rohit Lakshman Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the United States federal government 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. US HR violations don’t secure libertiesAmnesty International, 4-14-2021, "Everything you need to know about human rights in United States of America," No Publication, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ AND carrying of firearms is permitted engaged protesters, causing at least four deaths. Violation: they didPrefer –Vote neg –1~ Accessibility – they try to justify the US 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 brutality and promote American 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.2~ 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. 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 | 10/31/21 |
ND21 - T - Just v4Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Sam Anderson Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the United States federal government 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. US HR violations don’t secure libertiesAmnesty International, 4-14-2021, "Everything you need to know about human rights in United States of America," No Publication, https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ AND carrying of firearms is permitted engaged protesters, causing at least four deaths. Obviously their own aff about abusing prisoners means it’s unjust tooViolation: they didPrefer –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~ TVA – use ideal theory instead. That’s better – a~ promotes in-depth philosophical clash over labor law that’s constitutive 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 particularF, E, dtd, no rvi, ci | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - T - PrisonersTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Sam Anderson Interpretation: the affirmative cannot specify incarcerated people as the recipients of the right to strikePrisoners aren’t included under workers definition – Hurst 20:Natalie Hurst, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review, November 24, 2020, https://uclawreview.org/2020/11/24/prisoners-are-not-for-sale-incarcerated-workers-deserve-employee-status/ LHP PS AND have also rejected inmates’ employment discrimination claims on the same basis.~19~ The thirteenth amendment literally excludes them as workers.Outweighs –A~ they misread historyB~ it’s their own actorC~ The US being bad determining definitions would supercharge the violation on the other shellViolation: They didVote neg –1~ Precision – that was on the other shell2~ Limits – workers is a limit that sets a stable basis for neg prep – absent it the aff could specify anything, like employees, domestic laborers, and volunteers. | 11/21/21 |
SO21 - CP - PublicPrivate PartnershipsTournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Andrew Lee 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. | 9/21/21 |
SO21 - DA - BiotechTournament: Bronx | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Vandan Patel US dominance is secured in biotech now, but China’s closing the gap fast – that allows geopolitical and economic advantagesScott Moore 2020 ~(Director of the Penn Global China Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously, Moore was a Young Professional and Water Resources Management Specialist at the World Bank Group, and Environment, Science, Technology, and Health Officer for China at the U.S.) "China’s Role In The Global Biotechnology Sector And Implications For U.S. Policy" https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FP'20200427'china'biotechnology'moore.pdf~~ TDI Recut NChu AND the implications of developments in Chinese biotechnology for U.S. policy. The aff’s waiving of IP doesn’t solve but it does give away sensitive national security information that allows China to lead ahead in biotechJosh Rogin 4-8. ~(Washington Post Columnist covering National Security Issues.) "Opinion: The wrong way to fight vaccine nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-wrong-way-to-fight-vaccine-nationalism/2021/04/08/9a65e15e-98a8-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819'story.html ~ TDI Recut NChu AND helping the world and thinking about our strategic interests at the same time. China will convert biotechnology gains to military advantages, undermining US primacy – specifically true in the context of vaccinesMercy A. Kuo 2017 ~(Executive Vice President at Pamir Consulting.) "The Great US-China Biotechnology and Artificial Intelligence Race" https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/the-great-us-china-biotechnology-and-artificial-intelligence-race/~~ TDI Recut NChu AND are tailored to overcome the immune system or the microbiome of specific populations. A lack of forward military power causes great power conflict that escalates to nuclear war extinction, Brands 18’Hal Brands is the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins-SAIS, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. "Danger: Falling Powers" HAL BRANDS October 24, 2018 The American Interest https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/10/24/danger-falling-powers/ LHP MWS AND think that more dramatic action will succeed at some point down the road. Solves case – heg contains conflict incidence and escalation, Blagden 15David Blagden, phD at the University of Oxford, the Adrian Research Fellow in International Politics at Darwin College, and a Research Associate with the Centre for Rising Powers in the Department of Politics and International Studies, both at the University of Cambridge, "Global multipolarity, European security and implications for UK grand strategy: back to the future, once again" International Affairs 91: 2, 2015, pg 340-342 AND should at least partially hedge against embroilment in such as yet unforeseen emergencies. | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - DA - InnovationTournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 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. Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to prevent future pandemics and bioterror.Marjanovic and Feijao 20 ~(Sonja Marjanovic, Ph.D., Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Carolina Feijao, Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of Cambridge; M.Sc. in quantitative biology, Imperial College London; B.Sc. in biology, University of Lisbon.) "How to Best Enable Pharma Innovation Beyond the COVID-19 Crisis," RAND Corporation, 05-2020, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA407-1.html~~ TDI AND such public health threats to an even greater extent under improved innovation conditions. Pandemics cause extinction.Piers Millett 17, Consultant for the World Health Organization, PhD in International Relations and Affairs, University of Bradford, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, "Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity", Health Security, Vol 15(4), http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/hs.2017.0028 AND , and available vectors, could be modified as well.19-2 | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - DA - InnovationTournament: Bronx | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Vandan Patel 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. | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - NC - ContractarianismTournament: Valley Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley SK | Judge: Perry Beckett - Nethmin Liyanage 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 additionally:~1~ 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 NC~2~ 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 illegitimate | 9/24/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v2Tournament: Valley Round Robin | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Keshav Dandu - Triniti Krauss 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 illegitimate | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - NC - Contractarianism v3Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Plantation MC | Judge: Manasi Singh Moral internalism is true:~1~ Epistemology – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point.Markovits 14. ~Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. https://philpapers.org/rec/ROCJMM Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa~ BHHS AK AND motivated by genuine normative reasons (or even that some of us are). ~2~ Motivation – 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 illegitimate | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - NC - HegelTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Katy Stenner | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - NC - Hegel v2Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Andrew Lee 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.1~ 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) 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). 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 AND insufficient incentives to write new works unless they are compensated with property rights. | 9/21/21 |
SO21 - NC - Hegel v3Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westlake AK | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 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.Negate for 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 AND insufficient incentives to write new works unless they are compensated with property rights. | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - NC - Hegel v4Tournament: Bronx | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage MR | Judge: Andrew Shaw 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 for 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 AND insufficient incentives to write new works unless they are compensated with property rights. | 10/15/21 |
SO21 - NC - LayTournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington FV | Judge: Jim Gray | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - T - Reduce - Patent Term ExtensionsTournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Andrew Lee 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 | 9/21/21 |
SO21 - T - Spec ReductionTournament: Bronx | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Vandan Patel Interpretation: The affirmative must specify to what degree they reduce intellectual property protections.Reduce requires quantification.Passarello 13 – J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, 2013. (Nicholas, NOTE: THE ITEM VETO AND THE THREAT OF APPROPRIATIONS BUNDLING IN ALASKA, 30 Alaska L. Rev. 125, Lexis)BB AND the amount of an appropriations item, not the descriptive language accompanying it. Violation: they don’tVote neg1~ Precision – they don’t defend the resolution, which opens the floodgates for what the aff could be – the resolution is the only stable point of contestation2~ Shiftiness – vague plan wording wrecks Neg Ground since it’s impossible to know which DAs link or which CPs are competitive since different IP’s have different implications – absent 1AC specification, the 1AR can squirrel out of links by saying they don’t effect a certain protection or they don’t reduce IP enough to trigger the link.3~ CX doesn’t check - 1~ Skews pre-round prep – key to in-depth clash, 2~ Judges don’t flow CX, 3~ Unverifiable and Irresolvable,Independently vote Negative on Presumption since the Aff gets struck down for being void-for-vagueness since they don’t have an explanation of what is reduced or remaining after the Plan.4~ Topic Education – nuanced debates about IP requires specification since each form of IPR has specific issues related to it so generalization disincentivizes in-depth research. Topic Education is a voter since we only debate the topic for two months.5~ Reductions Spec isn’t regressive – it’s a core discussion central to the literature, we’ve read a card proving predictability, and is a floor for topic debates. | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - Theory - Spec ReductionTournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Tajaih Robinson TInterpretation: 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 presumption | 9/25/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/30/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/31/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/31/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/15/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/28/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/29/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/12/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
3/5/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
3/6/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
3/6/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
11/23/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/12/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/13/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/13/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
2/15/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
1/9/22 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/24/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/21/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | avermamagic@gmailcom |
|