Millburn Teng Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Westridge TW | Gonzaba, Brixz |
|
|
| |
| This One | Finals | You | Idk |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Lake Nona BJ | Colicchio, Maria |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Mission San Jose SB | Liyanage, Nethmin |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Edgemont Junior-Senior AJ | Brown, Grant |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Westridge TW | Judge: Gonzaba, Brixz 1AC - Disclose OS Korsgaard |
| This One | Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk I don't like leaving a blank space lol |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Colicchio, Maria 1AC - Disclose OS Korsgaard |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Liyanage, Nethmin 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Edgemont Junior-Senior AJ | Judge: Brown, Grant 1AC - Korsgaard |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InformationTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 9/13/21 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 9/13/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 9/13/21 |
1 - Must Disclose OSTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Colicchio, Maria Interpretation: debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source on the page with their name and school on the 2021-2022 NCDA LD wiki with highlighting, tags, and cites after the round in which they read them.Violation: they don't even have a wiki – see screenshot.Standards:~1~ Resource disparities – stealing cards is good because it's the only way to level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs.Louden 10 – Allan D. Louden, professor of Communication at Wake Forest ("Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century" Wake Forest National Debate Conference. IDEA, 2010) https://www.americanforensicsassoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Navigating-Opportunity-Book.pdf ~2~ Ev ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren't miscut or highlighted/bracketed unethically. That's a voter – ethical ev practices are key to academics and we should be able to verify they didn't cheat.~3~ Depth of clash – allows debaters to have nuanced objections at a faster rate, which leads to higher quality debates – outweighs because thinking on your feet is nonunique but the best quality responses come from full access to a case.Voters:Fairness: debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation – side constraint to substantive debate.Education: a) it's the reason schools fund debate and b) it's the only long-term benefit.Paradigm issues:DTD a) deters future abuse because they won't reviolate if they lose and b) no way to DTA.No RVIs – a) illogical – you don't win for being fair, and logic is a meta-constraint, b) good theory debaters will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse.Competing interps – a) reasonability is arbitrary and requires judge intervention, b) collapses because brightlines concede an offense-defense paradigm. | 9/18/21 |
1 - Must Include URLTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Edgemont Junior-Senior AJ | Judge: Brown, Grant Interpretation: debaters must include the URL in citations for their evidence.Violation: they didn't – examples include their Tuck and Yang, Grove, and Ballantyne cards.Standards:~1~ NSDA rules – the unified manual says to include the URL.NSDA 21 National Speech and Debate Association, "High School Unified Manual," 1 September 2021, National Speech and Debate Association, accessed 11 September 2021, pg. 30, https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/High-School-Unified-Manual-2021-2022.pdf ~ST~ That's a voter – if we can choose what rules to break, I can make speeches however long I want, which is a side constraint to substance. Also proves the shell is reasonable and predictable because it's by far the most common evidence standard.~2~ Evidence ethics – no way to check whether their quote exists because we can't find it on the internet – they can just make up whatever "evidence" they want, and there's not enough time for us to verify that it is actually legit evidence. Pasting into a search engine doesn't solve – a) many texts have weird formatting that prevents it from functioning, and b) difficult to find the correct version or one without a paywall. That's a voter – a) debate is meaningless if we're academically dishonest and have no argument credibility, b) uncredible evidence means we don't know if their claims are true, which also serves as a substantive indict, and c) debate should prepare for the real world, in which small ev ethics violations are punished severely – large repercussions the control internal link to other impacts.Also links to inclusion – small school debaters tend to use cards from the wiki. Bad citations negatively impact their research. That's a voter because inclusion is a prereq to debate.DTD – a) in real life, you don't get a quote cut out of your essay; you get a 0 on it – it's best to teach good norms now, and b) deters future abuse.Competing interps – a) reasonability is arbitrary, b) collapses because brightlines concede offense-defense paradigm, c) only CI prevents abuse since it can set norms, not decide rounds on a case-by-case basis.No RVIs – a) you don't win for being academically honest, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse. | 9/19/21 |
SO - KorsgaardTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Liyanage, Nethmin FrameworkThe metaethic is non-naturalism, that moral facts are derived from abstraction instead of experience.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It's impossible to derive prescriptive obligation from descriptive premises.~2~ Uncertainty – a posteriori ethics is subject to uncertainty. We could be dreaming, hallucinating, or being deceived by an evil demon. Infinitely outweighs because it would be escapable and therefore pointless.Next, ethics must begin with practical reason.~1~ Action theory – action is infinitely divisible. For example, the action of brewing tea could be broken into many small actions. The actions can't be moral or immoral since it would be infinitely divisible, but intention to brew tea unifies action.~2~ Bindingness – experience is subjective; only practical reason unifies and creates a moral theory.~3~ Epistemology – all arguments appeal to reason; otherwise, they are baseless, so reason is a constraint on evaluating their arguments.~4~ Infinite regress – we can always ask "why should I follow this framework," leading to infinite regress, but asking for a reason for reason concedes its authority. Only self-justified frameworks are epistemically sound.That entails universal maxims.~1~ Arbitrariness – absent universal ethics, morality is arbitrary and can't guide action, making it useless.~2~ Non-contradiction – there is no world in which p and ~p are both true. Acting recognizes the validity of others to take the action, which makes universal maxims a logical side constraint to other frameworks.~3~ Reason implies universalizability.Korsgaard 85 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, "Kant's Formula of Universal Law," 1985, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66, no. 1-2: 24-47, accessed 6 September 2021, pg. 1, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3201869/Korsgaard_KantForumulaUniversalLaw.pdf?sequence=2andisAllowed=y ACCS JM recut Thus, the standard is consistency with universal maxims.Prefer additionally:~1~ Performativity – freedom is key to argumentation. Abiding by their ethical theory presupposes we own ourselves, making it incoherent to justify a standard without willing ours.~2~ Other frameworks collapse – they contain conditional obligations which derive authority from the categorical imperative.Korsgaard 96 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, introduction to "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," 1996, Cambridge University Press, accessed 6 September 2021 pg. xvii-xviii, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/c/1868/files/2012/12/Kant-Groundwork-ng0pby.pdf AG recut ~3~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence and statistics puts small school debaters without huge files at a disadvantage, but my framework can be won without prep, which means it's theoretically preferable.~4~ Universalization unites the abstract with the concrete—that's key to challenging oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr, professor of philosophy at the University of Kentucky, "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" Spring 2002, JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, accessed 12 September 2021, pg. 17–32, sci-hub.se/10.1111/1467-9833.00121 ~5~ Prefer ideal theory: a) normative justification required because unjustified assumptions cause bad things, like oppression, b) collapses – saying an advocacy is better means saying it's closer to an ideal, c) material circumstances affected by different accounts of violence, d) arguing non-ideal is better requires an ideal theory of what theories should be.~6~ Consequences fail – a) we don't know if an action is bad until after it happens, meaning obligations can't be formed, b) every consequence causes another consequence – when do we evaluate "the consequence?" c) induction fails – we know induction works because it has in the past – that relies on induction and is therefore circular, d) assumes causation, which is an a priori concept, and e) if you're responsible for things other than intention, ethics aren't binding because there are infinite events over which you have no control.Offense~1~ Property rights are only coherent because of the principle of rivalryRauscher 07 Frederick Rauscher, professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, "Kant's Social and Political Philosophy," 24 July 2007, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 September 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/ ~ST~ Rivalry doesn't apply to IP – it can be used by many agents simultaneously. That makes IP protections unjust.Westphal 97 Kenneth R. Westphal, Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Wisco, "Do Kant's Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" 1997, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5, accessed 5 September 2021, pg. 189-190, sci-hub.se/10.2307/43593592 RE recut ~2~ Medicine is a discovery because it's about truth statements.Rhodes 19 Rosamond Rhodes, professor of medical education at Mount Sinai University, "The ethical concept of medicine as a profession discovery or invention?," December 2019, Journal of Medical Ethics, accessed 24 August 2021, https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/12/786.full/ ~ST~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over natural truth and impede individual's abilities to pursue ends.Long 95 Roderick T. Long, professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society, "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Autumn 1995, Free Nation Foundation, accessed 5 September 2021, http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html JL recut ~3~ Intellectual property protections in the squo violate physical property rights.Krawisz 09 Daniel Krawisz, director of research at Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, "The Fallacy of Intellectual Property," 25 August 2000, Mises Institute, accessed 16 September 2021, https://mises.org/library/fallacy-intellectual-property** That affirms – even if IP is legit, it's strictly theoretical and has no jurisdiction over its physical manifestations.~4~ Current medicine patents violate patients' ability to pursue freedom from death.Merges 11 Robert P. Merges, professor of law and technology at the University of California, "Justifying Intellectual Property," 13 June 2011, Harvard University Press, accessed 6 September 2021, pg. 275-277, https://in.booksc.me/book/52982150/a95147 SJEP recut | 9/18/21 |
SO - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Nona BJ | Judge: Colicchio, Maria FrameworkThe metaethic is non-naturalism – ethics begin a priori from our ability to reason.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It's impossible to derive prescriptive obligation from descriptive premises.~2~ Uncertainty – a posteriori ethics is subject to uncertainty. We could be dreaming, hallucinating, or being deceived by an evil demon. Infinitely outweighs because it would be escapable and therefore pointless.~3~ Bindingness – experience is subjective; only practical reason unifies and creates a moral theory.~4~ Infinite regress – we can always ask "why should I follow this framework," leading to infinite regress, but asking for a reason for reason concedes its authority. Only self-justified frameworks are epistemically sound.That entails universal maxims.~1~ Non-contradiction – there is no world in which p and ~p are both true. Acting recognizes the validity of others to take the action, which makes universal maxims a logical side constraint to other frameworks.~2~ Reason implies universalizability.Korsgaard 85 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, "Kant's Formula of Universal Law," 1985, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66, no. 1-2: 24-47, accessed 6 September 2021, pg. 1, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3201869/Korsgaard_KantForumulaUniversalLaw.pdf?sequence=2andisAllowed=y ACCS JM recut Thus, the standard is consistency with universal maxims.Prefer additionally:~1~ Performativity – freedom is key to argumentation. Abiding by their ethical theory presupposes we own ourselves, making it incoherent to justify a standard without willing ours.~2~ Other frameworks collapse – they contain conditional obligations which derive authority from the categorical imperative.Korsgaard 96 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, introduction to "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," 1996, Cambridge University Press, accessed 6 September 2021 pg. xvii-xviii, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/c/1868/files/2012/12/Kant-Groundwork-ng0pby.pdf AG recut ~3~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence and statistics puts small school debaters without huge files at a disadvantage, but my framework can be won without prep, which means it's theoretically preferable.Offense~1~ Property rights are only coherent because of the principle of rivalryRauscher 07 Frederick Rauscher, professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, "Kant's Social and Political Philosophy," 24 July 2007, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 September 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/ ~ST~ Rivalry doesn't apply to IP – it can be used by many agents simultaneously. That makes IP protections unjust.Westphal 97 Kenneth R. Westphal, Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Wisco, "Do Kant's Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" 1997, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5, accessed 5 September 2021, pg. 189-190, sci-hub.se/10.2307/43593592 RE recut ~2~ Medicine is a discovery because it's about truth statements.Rhodes 19 Rosamond Rhodes, professor of medical education at Mount Sinai University, "The ethical concept of medicine as a profession discovery or invention?," December 2019, Journal of Medical Ethics, accessed 24 August 2021, https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/12/786.full/ ~ST~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over natural truth and impede individual's abilities to pursue ends.Long 95 Roderick T. Long, professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society, "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Autumn 1995, Free Nation Foundation, accessed 5 September 2021, http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html JL recut ~3~ Intellectual property protections in the squo violate physical property rights.Krawisz 09 Daniel Krawisz, director of research at Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, "The Fallacy of Intellectual Property," 25 August 2000, Mises Institute, accessed 16 September 2021, https://mises.org/library/fallacy-intellectual-property** That affirms – even if IP is legit, it's strictly theoretical and has no jurisdiction over its physical manifestations.~4~ Current medicine patents violate patients' ability to pursue freedom from death.Merges 11 Robert P. Merges, professor of law and technology at the University of California, "Justifying Intellectual Property," 13 June 2011, Harvard University Press, accessed 6 September 2021, pg. 275-277, https://in.booksc.me/book/52982150/a95147 SJEP recut | 9/18/21 |
SO - Korsgaard v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westridge TW | Judge: Gonzaba, Brixz FrameworkFirst, ethics begin from a priori concepts derived from practical reason. | 10/15/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/15/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
|