Tournament: Sophomore Throwdown | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loveless RR | Judge: aryan jasani, jalyn
~B~ Motivation – the structure of the will is the primary source of all our desires, reasons, and beliefs since it generates what counts as motivational to the subject
~C~ Identity – the nature of the will is most constitutive to the creation of the subject since it determines what each subject considers intrinsic to its identity and what exists externally as an façade.
And some desires are so deeply engrained that they are essential to our identity and we can’t even imagine living without them. We call these non-negotiable manifestation of desires - volitional necessities. The necessity of an authentic, free will is contained within the action of willing. When one wills, one posits that one ought to permit to will – this makes volition a pre-requisite.
Jaeggi 1 (14) ~Rahel Jaeggi (August 2014). "Alienation." Columbia University Press. Translated by Frederick Neuhouser and Alan E. Smith. Edited by Frederick Neuhouser. Rahel Jaeggi is professor of social and political philosophy at the Humboldt University in Berlin. Her research focuses on ethics, social philosophy, political philosophy, philosophical anthropology, social ontology, and critical theory~los altos bf
On the one hand, self-alienation can be understood, with Frankfurt,
AND
, too, fails to solve the problem raised in our initial example.~~
And, when agents are denied the ability to act upon their volition necessities, they are alienated. Alienation denies one’s identity and relations with others, which restrains their ability to shape who they want to be as desires are no longer a part of their will.
Jaeggi 2 (14) ~Rahel Jaeggi (August 2014). "Alienation." Columbia University Press. Translated by Frederick Neuhouser and Alan E. Smith. Edited by Frederick Neuhouser. Rahel Jaeggi is professor of social and political philosophy at the Humboldt University in Berlin. Her research focuses on ethics, social philosophy, political philosophy, philosophical anthropology, social ontology, and critical theory~ los altos bf
THE CONCEPT OF ALIENATION REFERS to an entire bundle of intertwined topics. Alienation means
AND
is "a stranger in the world that he himself has made." 3
Thus, the standard is resisting alienation. The standard is means based since ethics shouldn’t be concerned with states of affairs that appropriation leads to but whether the act of appropriation is relevant to the self. Alienation isn’t the same as oppression; it is not only the literal denial of freedom, but also the failure to realize that freedom and relation to the world. Also means that alienation is the worst impact under any framework, so winning the offense is sufficient to affirm.
~1~ Consequences fail and trigger permissibility: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify action because we intend the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral or not
~2~ Rule Following Paradox: Rules can’t secure their own application – applying a rule to new situation is indeterminate. If I see a sequence 1+1, I might think the answer is 2, but that appeals to the higher rule of addition, which appeals to mathematics, and so on which leads to infinite regress.
~3~ Bindingness: Only the theory of alienation is inescapable because to deny the framework requires synthesizing the world such that you view yourself as an agent; being alienated prevents you from denying the framework. Ethics must be binding because bindingness is what makes ethical theories internally motivating and produces moral action from the agent, otherwise you presume..
Newman ‘06, (Saul, Senior Lecturer in Politics @ U of London, "Anarchism and the Politics of Ressentiment," Theory and Event - Volume 4, Issue 3, Muse, 2006, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-anarchism-and-the-politics-of-ressentiment) rclos altos bf
Rather than having an external enemy — like the State — in opposition to which
AND
opposition that only reflects and reaffirms the very domination it claims to oppose.
~1~ Only a principle of bodily rights which accounts for inalienable ownerships and medical distribution can avoid alienation.
Björkman and Hansson ‘06 (Beyza, Sven Ove. Bodily rights and property rights. J Med Ethics. 2006 Apr;32(4):209-14. Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 209-214. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.011270. )los altos bf – ask me for the pdf !
For the purposes of bioethical analysis it is particularly unfortunate that the natural rights account
AND
for those who depend for their health on the availability of such material.
Drahos ‘16, Peter. (2016) Original Pub November 1996, second edition June 2016. This edition © 2016 ANU eText. Print edition © 1996 Dartmouth Publishing Company. A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Abstract Objects in Productive Life: Marx’s Story. pp. 129-133. Professor Peter Drahos is an Australian academic and researcher specializing in the areas of intellectual property and global business regulation amongst others. 10.4324/9781315263786. los altos bf – ask me for the pdf !
The Tasks of Intellectual Property
We have argued that capitalism comes to depend on
AND
and industrial relations law but to control creative labour through intellectual property law.
~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory since the neg can be infinitely abusive and I can’t check back. It’s drop the debater and competing interps since the 1ar is too short to win both theory and substance and reasonability bites intervention since it’s up to the judge to determine. No 2NR RVI, paradigm issues, or theory since they’d dump on it for 6 minutes and my 3-minute 2AR is spread too thin.
~2~ Permissibility and presumption affirm- a) we presume statements to be true unless proven false- if I tell you my name is Ben you believe me unless you have evidence to the contrary. b) All statements of truth rest upon other assumptions, so if we presume everything false, then we can never prove anything true, including the statement presumption negates c) squo bias- we’re cognitively biased to maintaining the squo – if both options seem equal err on the side of change e) epistemics - we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason.
Bleiker ‘14 – (6/17, Roland, Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland, "International Theory Between Reification and Self-Reflective Critique," International Studies Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 325-327)los altos bf
For Levine, the key challenge in international relations (IR) scholarship is what
AND
critically reflexive movement might thus be rendered sustainable." (p. 103)
~4~ The neg must only defend the squo a) the aff can only indict the squo, which means counteradvocacies can delink all aff offense, forcing a 1ar restart while b) exploding neg ground- they can run any advocacy they want as long as it isn’t the exact same as mine, kills fairness c) clash- Non-converse advocacies sidestep AC offense and engagement on the aff contention because they don’t address the same issues the aff does. This is the best clash because it preserves the relevance of all original aff offense. Clash is the internal link to education because actual discussion is necessary for development of issues.
~5~ 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.
1~ Clash – AFC is key to force substantive engagement – otherwise they’ll just read util and ext ow – this solves – we get really good case debates and ethical interactions which are a lot better than when the aff loses to every generic.
2~ 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, otherwise skews 6 min of aff time, CA the ground weighing from the second interp.
No RVI on 1ac theory that has a pre-emptive violation – they would have 7 minutes to answer a minute-long shell and the debate would end right there – the entire 1ac can't be the shell because then they could just choose not to violate it.