| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | A Policy Debater | A Policy Judge |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Bronx Science KH | Tom, Neville |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Contact Info |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science KH | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC - Intuitionism Disclosure |
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 |
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 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/17/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
|