Lexington The Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 1 | RatCha Ella Huang | Curtis Chang |
|
|
| |
| Any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 1 | Opponent: RatCha Ella Huang | Judge: Curtis Chang AC - US |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 - ROB - Truth TestingTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: RatCha Ella Huang | Judge: Curtis Chang The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement based on fair, safe, and educational arguments – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc – other frameworks collapse since you must say it is true.Prefer,1~ Constituitivism – The topic is given to us to debate by NSD and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. These are the only roles we have going into the round which means the judge only has the jurisdiction to vote on arguments that prove the truth or falsity of the resolution.2~ Inclusion – Any offense functions under truth testing but hyperspecific RoBs exclude all other discussion and hurt underpriveledged debaters that don't have the resources to engage in those arguments. | 7/7/21 |
NSD - NC - DeterminismTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: RatCha Ella Huang | Judge: Curtis Chang Permissibility/Presumption (0:17)Permissibility and presumption Negate,1~ Text – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since the aff can't prove an obligation. O/W since text is the only thing we have access to prior to the round.2~ Safety – It's ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can't know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Real world – Policymakers don't pass policies they aren't sure about, they shelve them for later.Framing (2:02 with offense)The standard is consistency with determinism.1~ Thermodynamics – The first law of thermodynamics states energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted. Thus, free will, which comes from nothing, can't translate into physical action.2~ Biology – Every organism has controlled responses to stimuli because of its inherited genes and environment. That applies to humans, i.e. when we cut onions we cry.3~ Physiology – You can always ask why did you take that action? Which would be infinitely regressive. Thus, the only solution is our actions are just complex sets of reflexes. That outweighs, simplest solutions are more likely to be true since theres less room for mistake.4~ Causation – Every effect has a cause by definition, thus free will, which has no cause is illogical.5~ Nature – the universe is infinite, that justifies determinism since any individual act is too small to alter the fate of the universe, Horne 1Herman H. Horne, 1912, "The Arguments for Determinism", Excerpt from Free Will and Human Responsibility: A Philosophical Argument, https://web.csulb.edu/~~cwallis/100/articles/arguments_for_determinism.html 6~ Sociology – Every year, statisticians accurately predict the number of people who get married the next year. This type of data can only be explained through determinism since it shows human behavior is predetermined.7~ Ethics - All frameworks with a bindingness or motivation claim necessitate determinism since that framework would say in a given situation a moral agent must/will act in a specific way. If they deny this justification, it proves their framework triggers permissibility since it's escapable and can't guide action.8~ Arbitrariness – if determinism is false then you imply that human acts are random since they aren't based on any previous cause. Ethics can't be arbitrary because otherwise it wouldn't guide action since anything is permissible.9~ The best neuroscientific, psychological, and medical evidence agrees, Lavazza 16Andrea Lavazza, Neuroethics, Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy, Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/ /recut from AHS PB 10~ Molecular Physics proves we are just constructs of molecules, Coyne 12Jerry Coyne, ~Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago~, "Why You Don't Really Have Free Will," USAToday, January 1st, 2012. Recut from SM Offense1~ Obligatory responsibility doesn't exist because everything is predetermined so the aff is false.2~ Aff inherency proves you deviate from the squo which is an attempt to escape determinism by ignoring reality. That proves the AC is inconsistent with my FW.3~ Right is defined as,https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right That violates determinism since the notion of entitlement doesn't exist, nobody inherently deserves anything rather things just happen to them because they were meant to. | 7/7/21 |
NSD - T - Spec Government BadTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: RatCha Ella Huang | Judge: Curtis Chang Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a Government which recognizes the unconditional right of workers to strike."Just Government" is a generic indefinite singular.Leslie 12 Leslie, Sarah-Jane. "Generics." In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge, 2012. https://www.princeton.edu/~~sjleslie/RoutledgeHandbookEntryGenerics.pdf SM This applies to the res – 1~ Upward entailment test – "Just governments ought to recognize" doesn't imply that "Political bodies ought to recognize" since the res doesn't imply NATO should do it 2~ Adverb test — "Just governments always ought to recognize the uncondtional right to strike" doesn't substantially change the meaning of the resPrecision is an independent voter and outweighs – a) jurisdiction – the judge is contractually obligated to vote affirmative if the rez is proven true they can't vote aff if you aren't defending it, b) outweighs – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution.1~ Limits – they can specify anything from US, China, Norway, Russia, Japan, etc. – there's no unifying generics since each gov has differnet circumstances. That explodes neg prep and leads to random government of the week affs, which makes cutting stable links for disads or counterplan competition impossible.2~ TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it's the only intrinsic part of debate.Drop the debater – because you skewed the entire round.Competing interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm. b~ it creates a race to the top so we set the best normsNo RVIs – a) RVIs incentivize baiting T and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices and creates a chilling effect where people don't check real abuse. B) logic – you shouldn't win by proving you're topicalT before 1AR theory – A) Norms – we only have a couple months to set T norms but can set 1AR theory norms any time B) Magnitude – it impacts a larger portion of the round since the aff advocacy determines every speech after it | 7/7/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
7/7/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
|