| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | A Policy Debater | A Policy Judge |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Byram Hills EW | tanguturi, nikita |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | American Heritage Broward Mary Abi-Karam | Brown, Grant |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Bronx Science KH | Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Lake Highland Prep PS | Thomas-McGinnis, Conal, Joshi, Animesh, Jiang, Devin |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | American Heritage Broward EM | Thomas-McGinnis, Conal |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Sam Barlow EL | Gastelu, Luke |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Contact Info |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: tanguturi, nikita 1AC - Intuitionism v5 |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Mary Abi-Karam | Judge: Brown, Grant 1AC - Inventive Step |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science KH | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC - Intuitionism Disclosure |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal, Joshi, Animesh, Jiang, Devin 1AC - Intuitionism v4 |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 1AC - Intuitionism v3 |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Gastelu, Luke 1AC - Intuitionism v2 |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 -- Contact InfoTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Hey, I'm Vik -- pronouns he/him/hisYou can reach me by:Email -- vmaan03@gmail.com | 8/6/21 |
0 -- Content WarningsTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge I will always give content warnings before reading any potentially triggering positions, however, if you have any specific accommodations or concerns please let me know before the round. For me personally, please have a trigger warning for descriptions of ableist violence. That being said, for those who read long underviews please be straight up during cross-ex about short theoretical arguments (especially exempted ones that are not in the doc). I will do the same | 8/6/21 |
0 -- DisclosureTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions, on the page with their name and the school they attend, on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki on open source with highlighting after the round in which they read them.-- Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki for every round. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech.-- Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, they can’t say check open source.-- Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page, debaters must disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases. To clarify – you don’t have to include the full text of each, you just have to substitute them with a few words that summarize the thesis of the argument i.e. ‘actor specificity’ rather than ‘analytic’.-- Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box but must upload an open-source document with the full text of their cards on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open-source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards.-- Interpretation: Debaters must create a separate citation for each constructive position on their 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page. To clarify, you can't make cite entries labeled by round like "R1 Yale NC" or put multiple under one heading.Interpretation: The affirmative must, upon (the release of tournament pairings/flipping for sides), tell the negative what specific affirmative position they will be reading, within ten minutes. | 8/6/21 |
0 -- NavigationTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge 0 -- Contact Info/Navigation/Updates1 -- Theory Interpretations2 -- K Generics or FWsSEPTOCT -- September/October TopicNOVDEC -- November/December TopicJANFEB -- January/February TopicMARAPR -- March/April Topic | 8/6/21 |
1 -- Theory -- AFCTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interpretation: the neg must not contest the aff framework, read arguments that contest the ethical validity of the aff standard, or read an alternative framework provided that the aff has been disclosed open source.A~ Clash – AFC is key to force substantive engagement – intuitionism doesn’t exclude impacts and forces debaters to do advocacy comparison and engage in meaningful rebuttal clash. The disclosure plank means no prep skew and that you should be ready to debate the aff which is key to topic clash – topic ed o/w on timeframe since we can learn phil over 4 years but only have the topic for a few monthsB~ Strat skew – neg is reactive and can up-layer the aff on moral frameworks, procedurals, and discursive arguments – AFC levels the playing field by forcing the neg to commit to the aff on substance, which ensures the AC matters | 9/24/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Condo BadTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: tanguturi, nikita Interpretation: The negative can’t read conditional advocacies.Violation: You did1~ Strat skew-splits the 1ar by forcing me to argue against multiple worlds with different uniqueness conditions which precludes taking advantages of strategic interactions and contradictions. | 9/25/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Converse TheoryTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interpretation: the neg must fairly prove the truth of the statement "the member nations states of the WTO ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicine" To clarify, other than theory, all negative arguments must prove the truth of the statement.A~ Research – proving the converse means they have to actively search out reasons the plan is a bad idea—their model ensures that they never have to research different topics or do prep since it gives them an infinite number of objectionsB~ Strat skew—2 warrants – 1, you get variable ground if not bound by the rez—means you have access to more layers since I have a truth burden and you don’t, 2, you can moot 6 minutes of the 1ac by shifting the debate to a separate layer that the aff doesn’t interact with | 9/24/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Dispo BadTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Gastelu, Luke A Interpretation: the neg must defend all advocacies unconditionally. To clarify, this means you cannot run a dispositional counterplan.B Violation:C Standard:Strat skew—double bind—either a) they kill perm ground since I’m unwilling to let them kick the advocacy, which kills fairness since perms are to garner net benefits through perms or make links indicts effectively, and to ensure limits since otherwise aff can’t check infinite neg advocacies, OR b) I perm but they can kick it which guts my ability to engage in depth advocacy comparison since it exacerbates time-pressed 1AR by mooting the time on kicked positions. | 9/24/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Open SourceTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science KH | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don’t – ss proves missing last round1~ Debate resource inequities— the only way to truly level the playing field for novices in under-privileged programs who can’t bypass paywalled articles.2~ Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat | 9/17/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- IntuitionismTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science KH | Judge: Tom, Neville Ethics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing. Thus, a moral interpretation of ~intellectual property protections~ based on inherent characteristics is the only way to escape the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot substitute words in the place of good as for any property we identify with "goodness," agents can ask "Is that property itself good?" One can claim that pleasure is the highest intrinsic good, but the question can be asked, "But, is pleasure itself good" The fact that this question makes sense shows that "pleasure" and "goodness" are not identical. Thus, there is a distinction between natural and non-natural moral terms. Natural terms are externally encountered whereas the non-natural fails the test of physical cognition. Non-naturalism posits that moral properties like goodness are coherent but cannot be explained by natural terms. Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Additionally, correlation does not disprove non-naturalism because it does not contend that there is no relationship between moral terms and natural terms. Instead terms such as member nations and property cannot be reduced to a set of nonmoral features and interpreted as identical. Warranting a relationship further justifies the constraint since that intrinsically warrants a lack of identity. However, non-moral facts cannot conclude in moral reasons because of the gap between is and ought. We might observe that arsenic is poisonous, but then conclude that we ought not consume it, but the fact that these two premises are unrelated proves the ethical problem. Instead, a different mechanism is required to answer the question that lies outside the scope of the natural statement itself and furthers the gap by adding another moral premise.And, since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations.That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue.Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND moral intuition is necessarily elicited instantaneously, the way a sense perception is. This means adopting beliefs about the world are insufficient to make decisions consistent with them. Every system is inevitably hijacked or guided by intuitions which makes their faculty fundamentally inescapable.Prefer the standard additionally:First, rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation. Intuitions solve since they don’t rely on external normative force.Second, if we have the ability to not follow our intuitions, then that means that morality is non-motivational, and can’t guide action. Intuition is our internal motivation, so if morality can’t guide action then correctness and incorrectness don’t exist.Third, not following intuitions produces poor ontological understandings of the self, as we have ontological obligations to remain consistent with our way of being. Therefore, we a priori derive ontic obligations to reject moral standards that are devoid of our intuitions.Impact Calc:First, frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.ContentionAltruism and fairness are a priori intuitive - brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – intrinsically reducing patents legally allows medicines to be developed by other countries and allows others to access it which links to altruism.Now, the neg must not contest the aff contention a) forces a more in-depth phil debate which is constitutive of LD which means it o/w b) some frameworks descriptively flow one way which means it’s harder to access offense – framework debate makes it a 1:1 burden.Intuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND intuitive belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations | 9/17/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- Intuitionism v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Sam Barlow EL | Judge: Gastelu, Luke Ethics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing. Thus, a moral interpretation of ~intellectual property protections~ based on inherent characteristics is the only way to escape the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot substitute words in the place of good as for any property we identify with "goodness," agents can ask "Is that property itself good?" One can claim that pleasure is the highest intrinsic good, but the question can be asked, "But, is pleasure itself good" The fact that this question makes sense shows that "pleasure" and "goodness" are not identical. Thus, there is a distinction between natural and non-natural moral terms. Natural terms are externally encountered whereas the non-natural fails the test of physical cognition. Non-naturalism posits that moral properties like goodness are coherent but cannot be explained by natural terms. Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Additionally, correlation does not disprove non-naturalism because it does not contend that there is no relationship between moral terms and natural terms. Instead terms such as IPP and medicine cannot be reduced to a set of nonmoral features and interpreted as identical. Warranting a relationship further justifies the constraint since that intrinsically warrants a lack of identity. However, non-moral facts cannot conclude in moral reasons because of the gap between is and ought. We might observe that arsenic is poisonous, but then conclude that we ought not consume it, but the fact that these two premises are unrelated proves the ethical problem. Instead, a different mechanism is required to answer the question that lies outside the scope of the natural statement itself and furthers the gap by adding another moral premise. Intuitively if I’m textual I’m fair since the res is the only thing we are given before the round outweighs on predictability and the judge can only vote in the context of the res regardless if the round is unfair, since all theory just gets you back to substance.And, since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations. Also means, Reject neg meta-theory – I only have time to check abuse 1 time but you can do it in the nc and 2n, uplayering my attempt means we never get to the best norm.That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue. Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND moral intuition is necessarily elicited instantaneously, the way a sense perception is. This means adopting beliefs about the world are insufficient to make decisions consistent with them. Every system is inevitably hijacked or guided by intuitions which makes their faculty fundamentally inescapable.Prefer the standard additionally:First, frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.ContentionI affirm: Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce Intellectual Property Protections on medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Vik you’ll believe that unless proven otherwise b) we couldn’t function or do anything in a world where everything was presumed false c) any action has to be permissible until prohibitedAltruism and fairness are a priori intuitive - brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – An intrinsic characteristic behind discussions of waivers is altruism – it’s the intention.Melimopoulos, E. (2021, June 29). Explainer: What are patent waivers for COVID vaccines? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/29/explainer-what-are-covid-vaccine-patent-waivers AND on Wednesday, we take a look at the intensifying debate around waivers. And reducing patents allow other countries to develop vaccines and increase access to help those who need them.Now, the neg must not contest the aff contention a) forces a more in-depth phil debate which is constitutive of LD which means it o/w b) some frameworks descriptively flow one way which means it’s harder to access offense – framework debate makes it a 1:1 burden.Underview~1~ The AFF will defend NEG preferences on specificity insofar as it doesn't require me to abandon my maxim. If there is a problem with the paradigmatic issues set, it would justify dropping them rather than the AFF in its entirety since they are logically a prerequisite to the round. eval debate after the 1AC – key to preventing the 1N from spreading us out. Reject new paradigm issues or theory interpretations in the 2nr (a) judge intervention – judges have to insert intervention to see if the 2NR shells are true enough to o/w the 2ar CI (b) 6 min 2nr collapse can check back against 1ar abuse since we have to extend offense twice (c) they get 2nr theory, we get 2ar theory to check back against infinite 2nr abuse, also means new 2nr responses leads to a 13-6 skew on offense and moot 4 mins of 1ar offense since its based on 1nc concessions. (d) you can read 6 minutes of 2nr interps and the 3-minute 2ar becomes impossible. Eval theory after 1ar (a) both get 1 speech on theory (b) prevents 2nr collapse. Fairness first (a) every argument concedes the importance of fairness since you assume arguments would be evaluated fairly. Responses presume the debate hasn't already been evaluated. (b) Unfairness means the judge can hack against scholarships. Education is a voter – it’s reason why debate is funded.~2~ Aff gets 1ar theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive, drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, aff theory first (a) the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance (b) deters people from making the mistake again (c) competing interps means the 2n can’t dump on a reasonability bright-line that excludes only what they did wrong (d) you shouldn’t win for being fair, otherwise you can’t resolve rounds when no one reads theory (e) good theory debaters will be as abusive as possible and auto-win. (f) it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time, (g) the 2N has time to beat back my shell and win theirs, but it’s impossible for the 2AR to win 2 shellsIntuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND intuitive belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations | 9/24/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- Intuitionism v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Overview~1~ The AFF will defend NEG preferences on specificity insofar as it doesn't require me to abandon my maxim. If there is a problem with the paradigmatic issues set, it would justify dropping them rather than the AFF in its entirety since they are logically a prerequisite to the round.~2~ Reject new paradigm issues or/and new theory interpretations in the 2nr (a) judge intervention – judges have to insert intervention to see if the 2NR shells are true enough to o/w the 2ar CI (b) 6 min 2nr collapse can check back against 1ar abuse since we have to extend offense twice (c) they get 2nr theory, we get 2ar theory to check back against infinite 2nr abuse, also means new 2nr responses leads to a 13-6 skew on offense and moot 4 mins of 1ar offense since its based on 1nc concessions. (d) you can read 6 minutes of 2nr interps and the 3-minute 2ar becomes impossible.~3~ Fairness first (a) every argument concedes the importance of fairness since you assume arguments would be evaluated fairly. Responses presume the debate hasn't already been evaluated. (b) Unfairness means the judge can hack against scholarships.~4~ Aff gets 1ar theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive.FrameworkEthics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing. Thus, a moral interpretation of ~intellectual property protections~ based on inherent characteristics is the only way to escape the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot substitute words in the place of good as for any property we identify with "goodness," agents can ask "Is that property itself good?" One can claim that pleasure is the highest intrinsic good, but the question can be asked, "But, is pleasure itself good" The fact that this question makes sense shows that "pleasure" and "goodness" are not identical. Thus, there is a distinction between natural and non-natural moral terms. Natural terms are externally encountered whereas the non-natural fails the test of physical cognition. Non-naturalism posits that moral properties like goodness are coherent but cannot be explained by natural terms. Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Additionally, correlation does not disprove non-naturalism because it does not contend that there is no relationship between moral terms and natural terms. Instead terms such as IPP and medicine cannot be reduced to a set of nonmoral features and interpreted as identical. Warranting a relationship further justifies the constraint since that intrinsically warrants a lack of identity. No combo shells, there are always more planks you can add to the shell and find a random justification for it. However, non-moral facts cannot conclude in moral reasons because of the gap between is and ought. We might observe that arsenic is poisonous, but then conclude that we ought not consume it, but the fact that these two premises are unrelated proves the ethical problem. Instead, a different mechanism is required to answer the question that lies outside the scope of the natural statement itself and furthers the gap by adding another moral premise. Intuitively if I’m textual I’m fair since the res is the only thing we are given before the round outweighs on predictability and the judge can only vote in the context of the res regardless if the round is unfair, since all theory just gets you back to substance.And, since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations. Also means, Reject neg meta-theory – I only have time to check abuse 1 time but you can do it in the nc and 2n, uplayering my attempt means we never get to the best norm.That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue. Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND moral intuition is necessarily elicited instantaneously, the way a sense perception is. This means adopting beliefs about the world are insufficient to make decisions consistent with them. Every system is inevitably hijacked or guided by intuitions which makes their faculty fundamentally inescapable.Prefer the standard additionally:First, rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation. Intuitions solve since they don’t rely on external normative force.Second, if we have the ability to not follow our intuitions, then that means that morality is non-motivational, and can’t guide action. Intuition is our internal motivation, so if morality can’t guide action then correctness and incorrectness don’t exist.Third, not following intuitions produces poor ontological understandings of the self, as we have ontological obligations to remain consistent with our way of being. Therefore, we a priori derive ontic obligations to reject moral standards that are devoid of our intuitions.Impact Calc:First, frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.Second, moral intuitions can be rationally unsound. For example: Intuitions could justify the aff, but also justify util, which negates. In the case of contradictory maxims, err on specificity to the resolution. No general maxim is perfectly intuitive so only direct intuitions to the resolution explain a statement’s properties. Also, this merely proves the aff is a meta-ethical principle to the NC framework which means its offense functions as a hijack because the meta-ethic comes sequentially prior.ContentionI affirm: Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce Intellectual Property Protections on medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Vik you’ll believe that unless proven otherwise b) we couldn’t function or do anything in a world where everything was presumed false c) any action has to be permissible until prohibited1~ Altruism and fairness are a priori intuitive - brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – An intrinsic characteristic behind discussions of waivers is altruism – it’s the intention.Melimopoulos, E. (2021, June 29). Explainer: What are patent waivers for COVID vaccines? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/29/explainer-what-are-covid-vaccine-patent-waivers AND on Wednesday, we take a look at the intensifying debate around waivers. 2~ Reducing patents intrinsically allows other countries to develop vaccines and increase access to help those who need them which is consistent with altruism.3~ Now, the neg must not contest the aff contention a) forces a more in-depth phil debate which is constitutive of LD which means it o/w b) some frameworks descriptively flow one way which means it’s harder to access offense – framework debate makes it a 1:1 burden. – DTA.4~ Intuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND intuitive belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations | 9/24/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- Intuitionism v4Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal, Joshi, Animesh, Jiang, Devin Overview~1~ The AFF will defend NEG preferences on specificity insofar as it doesn't require me to abandon my maxim. If there is a problem with the paradigmatic issues set, it would justify dropping them rather than the AFF in its entirety since they are logically a prerequisite to the round.~2~ Reject new paradigm issues or/and new theory interpretations in the 2nr (a) judge intervention – judges have to insert intervention to see if the 2NR shells are true enough to o/w the 2ar CI (b) 6 min 2nr collapse can check back against 1ar abuse since we have to extend offense twice (c) they get 2nr theory, we get 2ar theory to check back against infinite 2nr abuse, also means new 2nr responses leads to a 13-6 skew on offense and moot 4 mins of 1ar offense since its based on 1nc concessions. (d) you can read 6 minutes of 2nr interps and the 3-minute 2ar becomes impossible.~3~ Aff gets 1ar theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive, drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, aff theory first (a) the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance (b) deters people from making the mistake again (c) competing interps means the 2n can’t dump on a reasonability bright-line that excludes only what they did wrong (d) you shouldn’t win for being fair, otherwise you can’t resolve rounds when no one reads theory (e) good theory debaters will be as abusive as possible and auto-win. (f) it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time, (g) the 2N has time to beat back my shell and win theirs, but it’s impossible for the 2AR to win 2 shells.FrameworkEthics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing. Thus, a moral interpretation of ~intellectual property protections~ based on inherent characteristics is the only way to escape the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot substitute words in the place of good as for any property we identify with "goodness," agents can ask "Is that property itself good?" One can claim that pleasure is the highest intrinsic good, but the question can be asked, "But, is pleasure itself good" The fact that this question makes sense shows that "pleasure" and "goodness" are not identical. Thus, there is a distinction between natural and non-natural moral terms. Natural terms are externally encountered whereas the non-natural fails the test of physical cognition. Non-naturalism posits that moral properties like goodness are coherent but cannot be explained by natural terms. Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Additionally, correlation does not disprove non-naturalism because it does not contend that there is no relationship between moral terms and natural terms. Instead terms such as nukes and States cannot be reduced to a set of nonmoral features and interpreted as identical. Warranting a relationship further justifies the constraint since that intrinsically warrants a lack of identity. However, non-moral facts cannot conclude in moral reasons because of the gap between is and ought. We might observe that arsenic is poisonous, but then conclude that we ought not consume it, but the fact that these two premises are unrelated proves the ethical problem. Instead, a different mechanism is required to answer the question that lies outside the scope of the natural statement itself and furthers the gap by adding another moral premise.And, since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations. When determining the differences between colors, we can look at one and identify it in the same way we look at goodness. There is no defining feature of morality like the color spectrum, rather we can identify it absent explanation through intuitions.That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue. Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND moral intuition is necessarily elicited instantaneously, the way a sense perception is. This means adopting beliefs about the world are insufficient to make decisions consistent with them. Every system is inevitably hijacked or guided by intuitions which makes their faculty fundamentally inescapable.Prefer the standard additionally:First, rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation. Intuitions solve since they don’t rely on external normative force.Second, if we have the ability to not follow our intuitions, then that means that morality is non-motivational, and can’t guide action. Intuition is our internal motivation, so if morality can’t guide action then correctness and incorrectness don’t exist. Intuitively weighing between frameworks is regressive since is assumes a higher metric over whose justifications are better. Answering intuitions with another framework doesn’t deny an obligation.Third, not following intuitions produces poor ontological understandings of the self, as we have ontological obligations to remain consistent with our way of being. Therefore, we a priori derive ontic obligations to reject moral standards that are devoid of our intuitions.Impact Calc:Moral intuitions can be rationally unsound. For example: Intuitions could justify the aff, but also justify util, which negates. In the case of contradictory maxims, err on specificity to the resolution. No general maxim is perfectly intuitive so only direct intuitions to the resolution explain a statement’s properties. Also, this merely proves the aff is a meta-ethical principle to the NC framework which means its offense functions as a hijack because the meta-ethic comes sequentially prior.ContentionI affirm: Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce Intellectual Property Protections on medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Vik you’ll believe that unless proven otherwise b) we couldn’t function or do anything in a world where everything was presumed false c) any action has to be permissible until prohibited.Altruism and fairness are a priori intuitive - brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – An intrinsic characteristic behind discussions of waivers is altruism – it’s the intention.Melimopoulos, E. (2021, June 29). Explainer: What are patent waivers for COVID vaccines? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/29/explainer-what-are-covid-vaccine-patent-waivers AND on Wednesday, we take a look at the intensifying debate around waivers. And reducing patents allow other countries to develop vaccines and increase access to help those who need them.Intuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND intuitive belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations | 9/20/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- Intuitionism v5Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: tanguturi, nikita Overview~1~ The AFF will defend NEG preferences on specificity insofar as it doesn't require me to abandon my maxim. If there is a problem with the paradigmatic issues set, it would justify dropping them rather than the AFF in its entirety since they are logically a prerequisite to the round.~2~ Reject new paradigm issues or/and new theory interpretations in the 2nr (a) judge intervention – judges have to insert intervention to see if the 2NR shells are true enough to o/w the 2ar CI (b) 6 min 2nr collapse can check back against 1ar abuse since we have to extend offense twice (c) they get 2nr theory, we get 2ar theory to check back against infinite 2nr abuse, also means new 2nr responses leads to a 13-6 skew on offense and moot 4 mins of 1ar offense since its based on 1nc concessions. (d) you can read 6 minutes of 2nr interps and the 3-minute 2ar becomes impossible.~3~ Fairness first (a) every argument concedes the importance of fairness since you assume arguments would be evaluated fairly. Responses presume the debate hasn't already been evaluated. (b) Unfairness means the judge can hack against scholarships.~4~ Aff gets 1ar theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive, drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, aff theory first (a) the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance (b) deters people from making the mistake again (c) competing interps means the 2n can’t dump on a reasonability bright-line that excludes only what they did wrong (d) you shouldn’t win for being fair, otherwise you can’t resolve rounds when no one reads theory (e) good theory debaters will be as abusive as possible and auto-win. (f) it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time, (g) the 2N has time to beat back my shell and win theirs, but it’s impossible for the 2AR to win 2 shells.FrameworkEthics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing. Thus, a moral interpretation of ~intellectual property protections~ based on inherent characteristics is the only way to escape the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot substitute words in the place of good as for any property we identify with "goodness," agents can ask "Is that property itself good?" One can claim that pleasure is the highest intrinsic good, but the question can be asked, "But, is pleasure itself good" The fact that this question makes sense shows that "pleasure" and "goodness" are not identical. Thus, there is a distinction between natural and non-natural moral terms. Natural terms are externally encountered whereas the non-natural fails the test of physical cognition. Non-naturalism posits that moral properties like goodness are coherent but cannot be explained by natural terms. Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Additionally, correlation does not disprove non-naturalism because it does not contend that there is no relationship between moral terms and natural terms. Instead terms such as IPP and medicine cannot be reduced to a set of nonmoral features and interpreted as identical. Warranting a relationship further justifies the constraint since that intrinsically warrants a lack of identity. No combo shells, there are always more planks you can add to the shell and find a random justification for it. However, non-moral facts cannot conclude in moral reasons because of the gap between is and ought. We might observe that arsenic is poisonous, but then conclude that we ought not consume it, but the fact that these two premises are unrelated proves the ethical problem. Instead, a different mechanism is required to answer the question that lies outside the scope of the natural statement itself and furthers the gap by adding another moral premise. Intuitively if I’m textual I’m fair since the res is the only thing we are given before the round outweighs on predictability and the judge can only vote in the context of the res regardless if the round is unfair, since all theory just gets you back to substance.And, since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations. Also means, Reject neg meta-theory – I only have time to check abuse 1 time but you can do it in the nc and 2n, uplayering my attempt means we never get to the best norm.That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue. Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND moral intuition is necessarily elicited instantaneously, the way a sense perception is. This means adopting beliefs about the world are insufficient to make decisions consistent with them. Every system is inevitably hijacked or guided by intuitions which makes their faculty fundamentally inescapable.Prefer the standard additionally:First, rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation. Intuitions solve since they don’t rely on external normative force.Second, if we have the ability to not follow our intuitions, then that means that morality is non-motivational, and can’t guide action. Intuition is our internal motivation, so if morality can’t guide action then correctness and incorrectness don’t exist.Third, not following intuitions produces poor ontological understandings of the self, as we have ontological obligations to remain consistent with our way of being. Therefore, we a priori derive ontic obligations to reject moral standards that are devoid of our intuitions.Impact Calc:First, frameworks all share equal value. Weighing between them becomes infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That means contestation is vacuous which means a locus of moral duty is sufficient since it has an uncontested obligatory power.Second, moral intuitions can be rationally unsound. For example: Intuitions could justify the aff, but also justify util, which negates. In the case of contradictory maxims, err on specificity to the resolution. No general maxim is perfectly intuitive so only direct intuitions to the resolution explain a statement’s properties. Also, this merely proves the aff is a meta-ethical principle to the NC framework which means its offense functions as a hijack because the meta-ethic comes sequentially prior.ContentionI affirm: Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce Intellectual Property Protections on medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Vik you’ll believe that unless proven otherwise b) we couldn’t function or do anything in a world where everything was presumed false c) any action has to be permissible until prohibited1~ Altruism and fairness are a priori intuitive - brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – An intrinsic characteristic behind discussions of waivers is altruism – it’s the intention.Melimopoulos, E. (2021, June 29). Explainer: What are patent waivers for COVID vaccines? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/29/explainer-what-are-covid-vaccine-patent-waivers AND on Wednesday, we take a look at the intensifying debate around waivers. 2~ Reducing patents intrinsically allows other countries to develop vaccines and increase access to help those who need them which is consistent with altruism.3~ Now, the neg must not contest the aff contention a) forces a more in-depth phil debate which is constitutive of LD which means it o/w b) some frameworks descriptively flow one way which means it’s harder to access offense – framework debate makes it a 1:1 burden. – DTA.4~ Intuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND intuitive belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations | 9/25/21 |
SEPTOCT -- AC -- Inventive StepTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Mary Abi-Karam | Judge: Brown, Grant OverviewAff gets 1ar theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive, drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps (a) the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance (b) deters people from making the mistake again (c) competing interps means the 2n can’t dump on a reasonability bright-line that excludes only what they did wrong (d) you shouldn’t win for being fair, otherwise you can’t resolve rounds when no one reads theory (e) good theory debaters will be as abusive as possible and auto-win.1AC – PlanPlan text: The Member Nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines by raising the inventiveness standard.The new standard adds requirements for re-patenting medicines – forces companies to take less obvious steps.Christensen 20 ~Connor Christensen, "The Evergreen Forests of Insulin Patents", Awakenwfu, The Creative Journal of Contemporary Bioethics, 9-14-2020, https://awakenwfu.com/2020/09/14/the-evergreen-forests-of-insulin-patents/, accessed: 9-25-2021.~ CHSTM and Lex VM AND tangible that something of the same name can be depriving people of life. Reducing IPP for insulin boosts innovation, increases regulation and allows for competition.Hanson 20 ~Emily Hanson, The Economic Burdens of Life: Trade Secrecy and the Insulin Pricing Crisis in the United States, 27 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 251 (2020). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol27/iss2/4~~ Lex VM AND of trade secrecy in the insulin market would likely help facilitate price reduction. Plan redirects revenue into innovation and reduces pricesNewsome 17, A ~(JD candidate George Washington School of Law). (2017). Side effects of evergreening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 45(4), 791-822~ Justin recut Lex VM AND companies to enter the marketplace sooner and drive prices down through competition. 5 The advantage is high pricesWe control Uniqueness – 78 of New Drugs aren’t innovative.PFAD 21 Patients for Affordable Drugs 2-3-2021 "BIG PHARMA’S BIG LIE: THE TRUTH ABOUT INNOVATION and DRUG PRICES" https://patientsforaffordabledrugs.org/2021/02/03/innovation-report/ (a patient advocacy and lobbying organisation based in Washington, D.C. founded by David Mitchell who suffers from multiple myeloma. Ben Wakana is the executive director. It focuses on policies to lower drug prices.)Elmer Re-Highlighted Lex VM AND that delivers meaningful clinical benefit to patients — instead of repurposing old drugs. US insulin prices are skyrocketing – lifesaving drugs for patients with diabetes are becoming more unaffordable.Rajkumar 20 ~S. Vincent Rajkumar, "The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action," Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 95, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 22-28. Rajkumar, MD, is Consultant at the Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic.~ CHSTM recut Lex VM AND innovation when it comes to insulin; the more pressing need is affordability. Evergreening and patent stacking insulin delays generics which drastically raises prices.Christensen 20 ~Connor Christensen, "The Evergreen Forests of Insulin Patents", Awakenwfu, The Creative Journal of Contemporary Bioethics, 9-14-2020, https://awakenwfu.com/2020/09/14/the-evergreen-forests-of-insulin-patents/, accessed: 9-7-2021.~ CHSTM and Lex VM AND each small step in the lineage is deserving of patent protection.~26~ Biologics like insulin have complex structures that are unknown to follow-on makers – reducing IP is key.Hanson 20 ~Emily Hanson, The Economic Burdens of Life: Trade Secrecy and the Insulin Pricing Crisis in the United States, 27 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 251 (2020). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol27/iss2/4~~ Lex VM AND Y is impossible to prove or disprove when Y’s identity is not known. COVID-19s effect on unemployment has caused a surge in diabetes related deaths in America.Terhune et al 8/12 ~Chad Terhune, Robin Respaut, Deborah J. Nelson, "Special Report-How the pandemic laid bare America's diabetes crisis", U.S., 8-12-2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-diabetes-covid-specialreport/special-report-how-the-pandemic-laid-bare-americas-diabetes-crisis-idUSKBN2FD13Q, accessed: 9-9-2021.~ Lex VM AND more expensive pharmaceuticals is not going to cut it at a population level." Type 2 diabetes disproportionally affects black compared to white people.Hopkins 20 ~Tracy E., Hopkins, is an experienced lifestyle and health writer based in Brooklyn, New York. A graduate of Howard University, Tracy began her career at Heart and Soul, a Rodale Press health and fitness magazine for women of color. That’s where her interest in health reporting was sparked, and since that time, she has continued to write about health issues and share personal health stories that are particularly relevant to the African-American community. Tracy’s topics of interest include diabetes, cardiovascular disease and reproductive health issues. In addition to Everyday Health, she has contributed health features to Essence, Woman’s Day, Real Health, POZ and SheKnows.com. "Diabetes in Black Americans: How to Lower Your Risk", EverydayHealth, 7-24-2020, https://www.everydayhealth.com/type-2-diabetes/diet/diabetes-african-americans-how-lower-your-risk/, accessed: 9-15-2021.~ Lex VM AND leads to higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol or accelerated cellular aging." Insulin revenue goes to shareholders not RandD – means reducing protections wouldn’t affect innovation.Collington 20 ~Rosie Collington is a Junior Researcher with the Academic-Industry Research Network and MSc student at the University of Copenhagen. She has previously worked in health policy and advocacy at medical research and patient organizations in the UK., "Who Benefits When the Price of Insulin Soars?", Institute for New Economic Thinking, 4-16-2020, https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/who-benefits-when-the-price-of-insulin-soars, accessed: 9-9-2021.~ Lex VM AND a foundation of the Danish company’s long-term capital for future innovation. Framing – Standard is minimizing structural violence.First, pleasure and pain are intrinsically valuable. People consistently regard pleasure and pain as good reasons for action, despite the fact that pleasure doesn’t seem to be instrumentally valuable for anything.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 AND places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Prioritize people who are alive today – intergenerational obligations are complicated by uncertainty and nonidentityVanderheiden 11 ~(Steve, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder) "Obligation to Future Generations," Encyclopedia of Global Justice, 2011~ DD AND Suppose, for example, that this generation was to embark upon a reckless program of environmental despoliation | 9/26/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/25/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/17/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/20/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/24/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/24/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
|