Lincoln Root Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | Finals | null | void |
|
| ||
| Yale | 1 | Montville AM | Srivastava, Kukie |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | Mission San Jose SB | Eberhart, Henry |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Srivastava, Kukie 1AC - Kant |
| Yale | 3 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Eberhart, Henry 1AC - Kant |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: None | Round: Finals | Opponent: null | Judge: void I think disclosure is a good norm so if you text me with your interp before the round I'll probably comply. | 9/17/21 |
2 - SO - Kant V1Tournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Srivastava, Kukie Rad CaseFraming~1~ The meta ethic is solving skepticism. Skep is bad and solving it outweighs any other argument. A) Skep would say that anything is morally permissible. That would mean things like the holocaust, rape, murder, and racism are permissible. This is obviously wrong and repugnant.~2~ Universality is necessary for morality. A) If it didn't apply universally, it would be arbitrary when it does and doesn't apply, which devolves to skep. B) It is only possible to agree on morality if there is a shared conception of good, universality ensures this. C) There is no morally relevant distinctions between people, to say otherwise would be oppressive. This means morality must apply equally.~3~ Morality is based on reason. A) Only reason is self-motivating as even asking for reasons why reason matters concedes its validity. B) Reason is always universal as the laws of logic ban contradictions. It is also universal across subjects as 2+24 for me just as it does for everyone else. C) Reason is constitutive to humans. Cartesian skepticism says that it is impossible to verify that our sense of the external world is not being faked by an evil demon. However, reason solves as merely the act of thinking necessitates that we exist and are, at a minimum, capable of reasoning. ==== ~4~ Reason is freedom. Kant says that acting on desires is not free because it can be externally influenced. Only autonomy, which is acting out of reason, is true freedom as your decisions cannot be influenced. They are just what they are. Freedom is necessary for morality because we can't be responsible for things we did not choose to do. Actions must be universalizable for all agents because otherwise it fails to universally respect autonomy.Thus the standard is consistency with universalizable maxims. Prefer additionally:~1~ Performativity. Debate concedes respect for everyone's ability to set their own ends, Hoppe 89:Hans – Hermann Hoppe, "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" 1989 Consequentialism FailsA~ Induction fails. Past events do not guarantee future events and any attempts to prove induction relies on induction and is therefore circular logicB~ There are infinite possible futures which necessitates infinite calculationC~ The future is infinitely long, so all actions have infinite consequences. Because they're all infinite, they're equal so you can't weigh between themD~ Intentions necessary for moral accountability. If you had a medical condition that makes you sleepwalk and rob a bank, then you aren't morally accountable because you didn't intend itE~ You can break down any action into infinitely many small substeps. You can't evaluate infinities so you must evaluate what unifies them, the intentionAdvocacyPlan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. CPs, Ks, and PICs affirm because they do not disprove my general thesis.Offense~1~ The categorical imperative rejects the idea of intellectual property as it suppresses freedom by preventing others from innovating and suppressing speech in the name of a copyright.Pievatolo 10 Pievatolo, Maria. "Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?" Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP ~2~ Justifying ownership based on creation is unjust.Kinsella 13 ~Kinsella S. (2013) The Case Against Intellectual Property. In: Luetge C. (eds) Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1494-6_99~~//Lex AKu recut Lex VM ~3~ IPP is nonuniversalizable – universalizing the act of restricting the production of a certain medicine terminates in a contradiction because it entails that you restrict your own ability to produce the medicine~4~ Property rights can't be universalizable when they forgo the opportunity for an individual to access their own freedom. Medical patents restrict an individual to pursue freedom from death by foreclosing treatment.Merges 11 Merges, Robert P. Justifying Intellectual Property. Harvard University Press, 2011. SJEP ~5~ Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AdvOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin Studies show that vaccine distribution solve COVID. Reject any ev that don't assume vaccine nationalism.Compares two models of HARs and LARs | 9/17/21 |
2 - SO - Kant V2Tournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Eberhart, Henry Rad CaseSpikes on the topTreat aff theory as lexically prior. Neg has time to beat back my shell and win its own in the long 2N, but I have to be able to collapse to 1 in the 2AR. This also justifies RVIs on neg theory. Additionally, reciprocity also justifies an RVI: only neg can read topicality so I need reciprocal layers, rather than adding more unreciprocal layersFairness Before K. A) Theory indicts the legitimacy of the K, so it comes at a higher layer. B) Fairness is inescapable, they've already conceded it by following speech times. C) All arguments concede the validity of fairness because they assume the judge will evaluate it fairly instead of just evaluating it off of personal belief.No Links of Omission. A) Infinite regress, it will be impossible for aff to meet since there will always be things that the aff doesn't do. B) Time skew, bidirectional theory and Ks forces a 1AR restart which means the aff lost all of the 1AC time. C) Substantive education, this would allow reading generic Ks that prevent substantive education.Method Ks Bad. A) Clash, they reduce discussion about the contention level of the aff. Clash is key for education because it promotes critical thinking. B) Substantive education, method Ks force the debate onto the method rather than substance. Substantive education outweighs because we have limited time on each topic. C)Reciprocity, I can't generate offense under your framework because it purely critiques my framework, but you can read turns under the aff framework.4~ Permissibility and presumption substantively affirm:~a~ If I told you my name is Jacob; you would believe that absent evidence to believe otherwise which proves that statements are more likely to be true.~b~ Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition – they prohibit the aff action.~c~ If agents had to reflect on every action they take and justify why it was a good one we would never be able to take an action because we would have to justify actions that are morally neutral i.e. drinking water is not morally right or wrong but if I had to justify my action every time I decided upon a course of action I would never be able to make decisions.Framing~1~ The meta ethic is solving skepticism. Skep is bad and solving it outweighs any other argument. A) Skep would say that anything is morally permissible. That would mean things like the holocaust, rape, murder, and racism are permissible. This is obviously wrong and repugnant. B) Skep takes out theoretical arguments because they assume that it is possible to generate better norms or solve abuse~2~ Philosophy is good. A) It justifies every step in why oppression or death is bad. Avoiding assumptions even when they seem obvious is good because there was a time when people assumed that things like slavery are good. B) The only way to persuade people to be better is full inescapable justifications, otherwise they could escape it. C) Ideal theory is inevitable, this non-uniques disads against it. Arvan 14:Posted by Marcus Arvan on 05/03/2014 at 11:05 AM What's not wrong with ideal theory http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/05/whats-not-wrong-with-ideal-theory.html ~3~ Universality is necessary for morality. A) If it didn't apply universally, it would be arbitrary when it does and doesn't apply, which devolves to skep. B) It is only possible to agree on morality if there is a shared conception of good, universality ensures this. C) There is no morally relevant distinctions between people, to say otherwise would be oppressive. This means morality must apply equally~4~ Morality is based on reason. A) Only reason is self-motivating as even asking for reasons why reason matters concedes its validity. B) Reason is always universal as the laws of logic ban contradictions. It is also universal across subjects as 2+24 for me just as it does for everyone else. C) Reason is constitutive to humans. Cartesian skepticism says that it is impossible to verify that our sense of the external world is not being faked by an evil demon. However, reason solves as merely the act of thinking necessitates that we exist and are, at a minimum, capable of reasoning. ==== ~5~ Reason is freedom. Kant says that acting on desires is not free because it can be externally influenced. Only autonomy, which is acting out of reason, is true freedom as your decisions cannot be influenced. They are just what they are. Freedom is necessary for morality because we can't be responsible for things we did not choose to do. Actions must be universalizable for all agents because otherwise it fails to universally respect autonomy.Thus the standard is consistency with universalizable maxims. Prefer additionally:~1~ The law of noncontradiction. Answering my framework would prove that contradictions are not false. This leads to trivialism and an aff ballot because the resolution being false would not contradict the resolution being true and therefore the resolution has to be true~2~ Performativity. Debate concedes respect for everyone's ability to set their own ends, Hoppe 89:Hans – Hermann Hoppe, "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" 1989 ~3~ Universalizability is the best way to solve oppression, Farr 02:Arnold Farr (phil prof @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. Consequentialism FailsA~ Induction fails. Past events do not guarantee future events and any attempts to prove induction relies on induction and is therefore circular logicB~ There are infinite possible futures which necessitates infinite calculationC~ The future is infinitely long, so all actions have infinite consequences. Because they're all infinite, they're equal so you can't weigh between themD~ Intentions necessary for moral accountability. If you had a medical condition that makes you sleepwalk and rob a bank, then you aren't morally accountable because you didn't intend itE~ You can break down any action into infinitely many small substeps. You can't evaluate infinities so you must evaluate what unifies them, the intentionAdvocacyPlan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. CPs, Ks, and PICs affirm because they do not disprove my general thesis.Offense~1~ The categorical imperative rejects the idea of intellectual property as it suppresses freedom by preventing others from innovating and suppressing speech in the name of a copyright.Pievatolo 10 Pievatolo, Maria. "Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?" Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP ~2~ Property rights can't be universalizable when they forgo the opportunity for an individual to access their own freedom. Medical patents restrict an individual to pursue freedom from death by foreclosing treatment.Merges 11 Merges, Robert P. Justifying Intellectual Property. Harvard University Press, 2011. SJEP ~3~ Justifying ownership based on creation is unjust.Kinsella 13 ~Kinsella S. (2013) The Case Against Intellectual Property. In: Luetge C. (eds) Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1494-6_99~~//Lex AKu recut Lex VM ~4~ IPP is nonuniversalizable – universalizing the act of restricting the production of a certain medicine terminates in a contradiction because it entails that you restrict your own ability to produce the medicine~5~ Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP Underview~1~ Knowledge exists independent of humans. A) 2 sides of a triangle could not be longer than the third side even before humans discovered it. B) Water at sea level freezes at 0 degrees Celsius even if no humans existed, and other animals would be able to observe it. C) Morality exists independently of the experiences of humans, just because something actually happens doesn't mean it is good, therefore morality must be determined a priori | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/17/21 | school@otisrootcom |
|