Millburn Teng Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Woodlands PA | Stuckert, James |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Ridge MS | Anderson, Sam |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Durham SA | Vandan Patel |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 2 | Northern Valley HS Independent JS | Choi, Jeong-Wan |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 3 | Byram Hills AK | McLoughlin, Samantha |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 6 | Proof DR | Georges, Joseph |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Triples | Westwood AR | Ying, Derek - Wixson, Andrew - Zhou, Lawrence |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Ft Lauderdale EB | Ying, Derek |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Strake Jesuit JW | Pittman, Phoenix |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 5 | Marlborough MJ | Quisenberry, Jack |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Edina NK | Kurian, Michael |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Memorial DX | Robinson, Tajaih |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Memorial BD | Krause, Lukas |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 4 | Scarsdale DH | Ying, Derek |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | North Allegheny ST | Brown, Grant |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Lake Highland Prep AB | Choi, Jeong-Wan |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | University AT | Guda, Srini |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | University AT | Guda, Srini |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Holy Ghost Prep CR | Harpster, Frank |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Summit AK | Eberhart, Henry |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Byram Hills EW | Hsu, Jonathan |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Olympia BO | StPeter, Joshua |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Bronx Science NK | Hertzig, Chetan |
|
|
| |
| This One | Finals | You | Idk |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Brophy SA | Smith, Justin |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Scarsdale BS | Tran, Nathaniel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Thomas Jefferson HSST AP | Robles, Naomi |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Woodlands PA | Judge: Stuckert, James 1AC - Cap |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Ridge MS | Judge: Anderson, Sam 1AC - Debris US-Russia war |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Vandan Patel 1AC - Debris Multilateralism |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Northern Valley HS Independent JS | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan 1AC - Pettit |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: McLoughlin, Samantha 1AC - Existentialism |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Proof DR | Judge: Georges, Joseph 1AC - China Tricks |
| Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Triples | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: Ying, Derek - Wixson, Andrew - Zhou, Lawrence 1AC - UK |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Opponent: Ft Lauderdale EB | Judge: Ying, Derek 1AC - Ilaw Colonialism |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pittman, Phoenix 1AC - Debris |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 5 | Opponent: Marlborough MJ | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack 1AC - Debris Colonialism |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Edina NK | Judge: Kurian, Michael 1AC - Psychocap |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Robinson, Tajaih 1AC - Pragmatism China |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Krause, Lukas 1AC - Racial cap |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Ying, Derek 1AC - Virtue Ethics |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | Opponent: North Allegheny ST | Judge: Brown, Grant 1AC - Space exploration |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan 1AC - Cap |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: University AT | Judge: Guda, Srini 1AC - Medical access vaccines |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: University AT | Judge: Guda, Srini 1AC - Medical access vaccines |
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Holy Ghost Prep CR | Judge: Harpster, Frank 1AC - Access to medicines Corruption |
| New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Summit AK | Judge: Eberhart, Henry 1AC - Underdeveloped countries Feminism |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Hsu, Jonathan 1AC - Worker domination Democracy |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Opponent: Olympia BO | Judge: StPeter, Joshua 1AC - China |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Opponent: Bronx Science NK | Judge: Hertzig, Chetan 1AC - Climate strikes Econ |
| This One | Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk I don't like leaving a blank space lol |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: Brophy SA | Judge: Smith, Justin 1AC - Indopak |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Tran, Nathaniel 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: Thomas Jefferson HSST AP | Judge: Robles, Naomi 1AC - Kant AFC |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InformationTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 1/1/22 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 1/1/22 |
0 - Formatting - Please ReadTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk a) Don't b) format c) it d) like e) this. b) It c) Out d) Like f) This, g) Thanks! | 1/1/22 |
0 - NavigationTournament: This One | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 1/1/22 |
1 - Disclose OSTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Woodlands PA | Judge: Stuckert, James 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: Their entry record shows they went to 10 tournaments this season, but none are disclosed – see screenshots.Entry record (https://www.tabroom.com/index/results/team_results.mhtml?id1=1080163andid2=)==== | 2/19/22 |
1 - Extra-T BadTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: North Allegheny ST | Judge: Brown, Grant Interpretation: The affirmative debater may defend only an advocacy that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. To clarify, extra-T bad.Violation: They defended getting rid of private space exploration. Actions are specifically extra-T because the res poses a value question instead of an action.Standards:~1~ Limits and ground – extra-T means they can literally defend anything they want, which means they can get offense from fiating no structural violence, solving any extinction impact, etc. which makes it impossible to debate insofar as we're forced to negate a utopian society.~2~ Predictability – the aff can take us on whatever unpredictable adventure they want because we have no clue what they'll fiat outside of the res. That explodes my prep burden as they have infinite time to prep and frontline their aff whereas we have 30 minutes at best to come up with a 1N to something random.~3~ Reciprocity – we debate with the assumption of the topic; it's irreciprocal if the aff can arbitrarily change it last-minute, which is definitionally unfair.Voters:Fairness – a) debate is a competitive activity that objective evaluation to function, and b) debaters quit if it's unfair, which makes it an internal link to all other impacts.Paradigm issues:DTD – a) deters future abuse so they won't reviolate, and b) T indicts the entire aff.Prefer CI – a) you can't be "reasonably topical," b) reasonability is arbitrary and requires judge intervention, c) collapses because brightlines concede offense-defense paradigm, d) only CI sets fairness norms because it establishes a rule instead of deciding rounds on a case-by-case basis, and e) it's reasonable to expect you to affirm what you're supposed to which means any violation is sufficient.No RVIs – a) you don't win for being fair, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse, c) people will be scared to call out real abuse for fear of being out-teched on the RVI, and d) norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong, which forces me to argue for bad norms. | 2/19/22 |
1 - Must Include Page NumbersTournament: Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: McLoughlin, Samantha Interpretation: debaters must include page numbers from which they quote in citations for their evidence if the original source has pages.Violation: they didn't – examples include their NLRB 85 and Macmillan card(s).Standards:~1~ NSDA rules – the unified manual says to include page numbers.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 standard.~2~ Evidence ethics – no way to check whether their quote exists because we can't find it in the book – 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. Ctrl + f doesn't solve – many articles have weird formatting that prevents it from functioning. 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. | 11/6/21 |
1 - Must Include URLTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Tran, Nathaniel Interpretation: debaters must include the URL in citations for their evidence.Violation: they didn't – examples include their Otteson card.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. | 11/6/21 |
1 - Must Not Read CX ChecksTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Ying, Derek Interpretation: The Aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1ac. In other words, the aff may not run cx checks.Violation:1. Theory recourse – CX checks (a) causes sidestepping, encouraging you to have hidden abusive args since I either call you out on it in cx and you kick it or I concede it and you win, which makes debates innocuous and is empirically confirmed with Jake Steirn, (b) causes ambiguity – what constitutes a sufficient "check" is unclear. Even if we isolate the abusive practice in CX, the aff can still go for the arg and establish new parameters for checking, and (c) prep skew – even if you don't kick the abuse, you get extra time to prep my interp since you know what I'll indict. That gives you nearly double the time to prep and creates irreciprocal burdens. Theory recourse is key to any voter since it ensures I can check back abusive strategies.2. Strat Skew – This skews my strategy because a) I have to waste valuable cross-x time clarifying abusive argument of asking questions that set up a coherent strategy in the NC, b) I am not allowed to run theory if I think of a potentially abusive thing in the AC during my speech. This also link turns all other theory arguments since theoretical benefits are predicated on the ability to run theory in the first place. | 1/17/22 |
1 - Must Read ROTBTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Tran, Nathaniel Interpretation: the affirmative must read a ROTB in the form of a delineated text in the 1AC.Violation: they didn'tStandards:~~~1~~~ Strat skew – they can read offense under different ROTBs and a new ROTB in the 1AR, so they never substantively lose, which moots engagement. They can read a hyperspecific ROTB in the 1AR so that only undercovered offense matters. Infinite abuse – a new 1AR ROTB allows for dumping on the neg ROTB, making negating impossible since there's no 3NR to answer 2AR extrapolations. Stable advocacies also key to fairness – otherwise you aren't bound by what you say – justifies saying the N word, then shifting out of their reps.~~~2~~~ Reciprocity – a) restarting ROTB debate in 1AR puts them at a 7-6 time skew advantage; a 1AC ROTB solves, b) we have 1 speech to respond while they have 2 and can comparatively weigh in the 2AR, and c) I can only read a ROTB in my constructive, so they should as well since it's definitionally an equal burden.Voters:Fairness: a) debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation – side constraint to substantive debate, and b) debaters quit if it's unfair, which is an internal link to everything.DTD to a) deter future abuse because they won't re-violate if they lose and b) rectify time skew from reading theory.Competing interps – a) reasonability is arbitrary and requires judge intervention, b) collapses because brightlines concede an offense-defense paradigm.No RVIs – a) illogical – you don't win for being fair; logic is a meta-constraint, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse. | 11/6/21 |
1 - Nebel-TTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Brophy SA | Judge: Smith, Justin Interpretation: The affirmative debater may not defend that nations ought to reduce protections for a subset of medicines or a single medicine."Medicines" is a generic bare plural.Nebel 19 Nebel, Jake, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs Institute, "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution," 12 August 2019, Vbriefly, accessed 31 August 2021, https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO_avWCNzi14 It applies to "medicines" – a) upward entailment test – the res doesn't entail that nations ought to reduce IP protections for inventions because it might not apply to things like art or digital tech, and b) adverb test – saying they usually ought to reduce IP protections doesn't substantially change the meaning of the res. Outweighs their evidence – it tells us what to do with indefinite singulars, whereas they assume bare plurals can only mean one thing.Violation: they specified ~medicine~.Standards:~1~ Precision – The counter-interp justifies arbitrarily doing away with words in the res, which decks neg ground and prep because the aff is no longer bounded to a topical advocacy. The judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – They can spec any medicines including COVID treatments, antibiotics, antidepressants, vaccines, etc. and any permutation of them which explodes my prep burden – I have to prep against thousands of affs individually which skews engagement as they have infinite prep time to frontline your one aff whereas I won't be prepared for yours – wrecks neg prep since there's marginal differences in the advantage but it takes out ground like DAs to medicines. Uniquely harms small school debaters who are incapable of cutting large backfiles which harms inclusion – that's a voter since we have to make the debate space safe, and it's a pre-requisite to debate.TVA: read your aff as an advantage under a whole advantage – solves all your offense.Voters:Fairness – a) debate is a competitive activity that objective evaluation to function, and b) debaters quit if it's unfair, which makes it an internal link to all other impacts.DTD – a) deters future abuse so they won't reviolate, and b) T indicts the entire aff.Prefer competing interps – a) you can't be "reasonably topical," b) reasonability is arbitrary, and c) collapses because brightlines concede offense-defense paradigm.No RVIs – a) you don't win for being fair, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse, c) people will be scared to call out real abuse for fear of being out-teched on the RVI, and d) norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong, which forces me to argue for bad norms. | 9/18/21 |
1 - ROTB SpecTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Woodlands PA | Judge: Stuckert, James Interpretation: if the affirmative reads a ROTB other than TT, they must specify a comprehensive ROTB and clarify how offense operates in the form of a delineated text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must clarify:~1~ How offense links to the ROTB, such as if pre or post-fiat offense matters or comes first.~2~ How theoretical objections operate, such as if the aff comes before theory.~3~ How to compare between advocacies, such as if engagements off the flow are evaluated.Violation: they didn't (specify which points they violate).Standards:~1~ Engagement – can't contest offense that we don't know links to their aff. a) key to fairness, education, and is an independent voter since we need a point of contestation to answer claims in-depth, b) key to novice inclusion since they don't know K lit or how the ROTB functions – voter because debate requires participation, and c) link turns their ROTB – impacts depend on engagement with their oppression issues – no net benefit from just writing the case at home and is uniquely bad since people won't take a position that can't be clashed with seriously.~2~ Strat skew – formulating a strategy is impossible if we don't know what links to the evaluative mechanism. For example, if I larp, they can say the 1AC is about performance and weigh to exclude all my offense. | 2/19/22 |
1 - T-ATournament: Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: Ying, Derek - Wixson, Andrew - Zhou, Lawrence ===="A" is a generic indefinite article.==== Violation: they specified Great Britain and North Ireland.Standards:~1~ Precision – The counter-interp justifies arbitrarily doing away with words in the res, which decks neg ground and prep because the aff is no longer bounded to a topical advocacy. The judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – They can spec any government including the US, Canada, Brazil, Australia, etc. and any permutation of them which explodes my prep burden – I have to prep against thousands of affs individually which skews engagement as they have infinite prep time to frontline your one aff whereas I won't be prepared for yours – wrecks neg prep since there's marginal differences in the advantage but it takes out ground like DAs to countries. Uniquely harms small school debaters who are incapable of cutting large backfiles which harms inclusion – that's a voter since we have to make the debate space safe, and it's a pre-requisite to debate.TVA: read your aff as an advantage – solves all your offense.Voters:Fairness – a) debate is a competitive activity that objective evaluation to function, and b) debaters quit if it's unfair, which makes it an internal link to all other impacts.DTD – a) deters future abuse so they won't reviolate, and b) T indicts the entire aff.Prefer competing interps – a) you can't be "reasonably topical," b) reasonability is arbitrary, and c) collapses because brightlines concede offense-defense paradigm.No RVIs – a) you don't win for being fair, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse, c) people will be scared to call out real abuse for fear of being out-teched on the RVI, and d) norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong, which forces me to argue for bad norms. | 11/7/21 |
1 - T-Just GovernmentTournament: Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Proof DR | Judge: Georges, Joseph Interpretation: The affirmative debater must defend that a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Violation: They defended the Chinese government, which is unjust.Human Rights Watch 21 Human Rights Watch, "China: Crimes Against Humanity in Xinjiang," 19 April 2021, Human Rights Watch accessed 6 November 2021, https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/19/china-crimes-against-humanity-xinjiang Standards:~1~ Precision – The counter-interp justifies arbitrarily doing away with words in the res, which decks neg ground and prep because the aff is no longer bounded to a topical advocacy. The judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – They can literally defend anything, which explodes my prep burden because there are infinite potential affs. Uniquely harms small school debaters who are incapable of cutting large backfiles which harms inclusion – that's a voter since we have to make the debate space safe, and it's a pre-requisite to debate.~3~ Inclusion – defending China as just is exclusionary to those who suffer from its violence – they try to hide authoritarianism in spite of clear systemic oppression.TVA: use ideal theory – a) promotes philosophical clash unique to LD whereas we can debate policy in any other instance, b) solves their offense because they can argue these problems exist with a just government.Voters:Fairness – a) debate is a competitive activity that objective evaluation to function, and b) debaters quit if it's unfair, which makes it an internal link to all other impacts.DTD – a) deters future abuse so they won't reviolate, and b) T indicts the entire aff.Prefer competing interps – a) you can't be "reasonably topical," b) reasonability is arbitrary, and c) collapses because brightlines concede offense-defense paradigm.No RVIs – a) you don't win for being fair, b) people will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse, c) people will be scared to call out real abuse for fear of being out-teched on the RVI, and d) norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong, which forces me to argue for bad norms. | 11/7/21 |
2 - DeterminismTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Tran, Nathaniel Determinism negates – lack of free will disproves moral obligations.The 1AC says that morality must begin from free actions derived from practical reason. However, their framework is missing an internal link as to why humans actually are free agents that can choose what actions to take – if we disprove free will, vote neg.~~~1~~~ Everything is determined. Effects and causal chains are the necessary result of past causes.Timpe no date, Kevin Timpe, professor of philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University, "Free Will," no date, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 21 August 2021, https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/ ~~ST~~ Applies to humans – every thought is caused by neurochemical changes.Cave 16 Stephen Cave, senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge, "There's No Such Thing as Free Will," June 2016, The Atlantic, accessed 21 August 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/ ~~ST~~ ~~~2~~~ Brain signals determine action before the conception of choice even arises.Fried et. al 11 Itzhak Fried, professor of neurosurgery, psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA, Roy Mukamel, associate professor of psychology at Tel-Aviv University, Gabriel Kreiman, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard, "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition," 10 February 2011, PubMed, accessed 21 August 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315264/ ~~ST~~ That disproves moral obligations since they're predicated on the possibility of alternate actions – a) events in your life aren't actions without a potential alternate; they just happen to you, b) you can't have an obligation over something you have no control over, c) morality only exists in opposition to immorality. If there is only one action, then it can't be moral, and d) their framework requires agency, which entails that free will exists. | 11/6/21 |
2 - Determinism v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Thomas Jefferson HSST AP | Judge: Robles, Naomi The 1AC says that morality must begin from free actions derived from practical reason. However, their framework is missing an internal link as to why humans actually are free agents that can choose what actions to take – if we disprove free will, vote neg.First, everything is determined.~1~ All effects and causal chains are the necessary result of past causes.Timpe no date, Kevin Timpe, professor of philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University, "Free Will," no date, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 21 August 2021, https://iep.utm.edu/freewill/ ~ST~ Applies to humans – every thought is caused by neurochemical changes.Cave 16 Stephen Cave, senior research fellow at the University of Cambridge, "There's No Such Thing as Free Will," June 2016, The Atlantic, accessed 21 August 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/ ~ST~ ~2~ Brain signals determine action before the conception of choice even arises – means we don't control our actionsFried et. al 11 Itzhak Fried, professor of neurosurgery, psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA, Roy Mukamel, associate professor of psychology at Tel-Aviv University, Gabriel Kreiman, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard, "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition," 10 February 2011, PubMed, accessed 21 August 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315264/ ~ST~ Next, existence of obligations necessitates alternate possibilities.~1~ Action theory – alternatives distinguish what we do, a.k.a. actions, from what happens to us. Events in your life aren't something you do without a potential alternate. For example, there's no alternate if you wake up from a loud noise; it happens to you instead of being actively chosen.~2~ You can't have an obligation to do something impossible; otherwise, we'd have responsibility over everything outside of our control. We can't be responsible for the aff's advantages – harms in the squo are outside of our control – that's the intent-foresight distinction.~3~ Moral language – blaming someone assumes they had the ability to do otherwise – you wouldn't hold a baby culpable for theft.~4~ Dichotomies – morality only exists in opposition to immorality. If there is only one action, then it can't contain morality.~5~ Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive; if a subject is not the cause of their action, they can't be guided by moral principles.The res being requires alternate possibilities since it's about moral obligation; thus, the res is independently false. | 11/6/21 |
2 - Determinism v3Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: North Allegheny ST | Judge: Brown, Grant Every effect has a cause precisely predetermined by the laws of nature.Westacott 18 Emrys Westacott, Professor of Philosophy at Alfred University, Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, "Hard Determinism Explained," 17 January 2018, ThoughtCo, accessed 31 December 2021, Pg. 1, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-hard-determinism-2670648 ~ST~ Takes out justice:~1~ Injustice is only possible with an alternative.Robb 20 David Robb, Professor of Philosophy at Davidson College, "Moral Responsibility and the Principle of Alternative Possibilities," 9 July 2020, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, Pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alternative-possibilities/ ~ST~ ~2~ It is impossible to label something as unjust without free will.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ | 2/19/22 |
2 - Determinism v4Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pittman, Phoenix ~1~ Every effect has a cause precisely predetermined by the laws of nature.Westacott 18 Emrys Westacott, Professor of Philosophy at Alfred University, Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, "Hard Determinism Explained," 17 January 2018, ThoughtCo, accessed 31 December 2021, Pg. 1, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-hard-determinism-2670648 ~ST~ ~2~ Brain signals determine action before choice – means we don't control our actionsFried et. al 11 Itzhak Fried, professor of neurosurgery, psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA, Roy Mukamel, associate professor of psychology at Tel-Aviv University, Gabriel Kreiman, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard, "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition," 10 February 2011, PubMed, accessed 21 August 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315264/ ~ST~ Takes out justice:~1~ Labelling an action as unjust is only possible with an alternative.Robb 20 David Robb, Professor of Philosophy at Davidson College, "Moral Responsibility and the Principle of Alternative Possibilities," 9 July 2020, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, Pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alternative-possibilities/ ~ST~ ~2~ It is impossible to label something as unjust without free will.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ | 1/28/22 |
2 - Determinism v5Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Woodlands PA | Judge: Stuckert, James ~1~ Every effect has a cause precisely predetermined by the laws of nature.Westacott 18 Emrys Westacott, Professor of Philosophy at Alfred University, Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, "Hard Determinism Explained," 17 January 2018, ThoughtCo, accessed 31 December 2021, Pg. 1, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-hard-determinism-2670648 ~ST~ ~2~ Brain signals determine action before choice – means we don't control our actionsFried et. al 11 Itzhak Fried, professor of neurosurgery, psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA, Roy Mukamel, associate professor of psychology at Tel-Aviv University, Gabriel Kreiman, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard, "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition," 10 February 2011, PubMed, accessed 21 August 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315264/ ~ST~ Takes out justice:~1~ Labelling an action as unjust is only possible with an alternative.Robb 20 David Robb, Professor of Philosophy at Davidson College, "Moral Responsibility and the Principle of Alternative Possibilities," 9 July 2020, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, Pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alternative-possibilities/ ~ST~ ~2~ It is impossible to label something as unjust without free will.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 2 January 2022, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ | 2/19/22 |
2 - Truth TestingTournament: Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Northern Valley HS Independent JS | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Linguistics – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That outweighs – a) Controls the internal link to predictability and prep which is key for clash and substantive education b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing. | 11/6/21 |
2 - Truth Testing v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Edina NK | Judge: Kurian, Michael The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Linguistics – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That outweighs – a) Controls the internal link to predictability and prep which is key for clash and substantive education b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing.~3~ Inclusion – their ROTB excludes all strategies but theirs, which is bad for inclusive debates because people without comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns their ROTB.~4~ Isomorphism – ROTBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing is a binary of truth or falsity – there isn't a closest estimate. | 11/20/21 |
2 - Truth Testing v3Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: North Allegheny ST | Judge: Brown, Grant The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Linguistics – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That outweighs – a) Controls the internal link to predictability and prep which is key for clash and substantive education b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden.~2~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing. | 2/19/22 |
JF - Innovation DATournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Pittman, Phoenix Space commercialization drives tech innovation in the squo.Hampson 17 Joshua Hampson, Security Studies Fellow at the Niskanen Center, "The Future of Space Commercialization," 25 January 2017, Niskanen Center, accessed 14 January 2022, Pg. 3-5, https://republicans-science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/TheFutureofSpaceCommercializationFinal.pdf Elmer That solves extinction.Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews, co-founder of Vox, cites Nick Beckstead, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Rutgers University, "How to help people millions of years from now," 26 October 2018, Vox, accessed 14 January 2022, Pg. 1, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good Re-cut by Elmer recut | 1/28/22 |
JF - KorsgaardTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Jeong-Wan, Choi I negate, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.FrameworkEthics are derived a priori from practical reason.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. We can't 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, so it can't be the basis of ethics.~3~ 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.That entails universal maxims because of 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.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 first willing ours.~2~ Only Korsgaard applies to justice.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 26 December 2021, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ ~3~ 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 which means you can't deny normative obligation.Offense~1~ Self-ownership is the ability to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 71-73, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 phs st recut ~2~ Space only changes the location of property acquisition, not its intrinsic nature, so there's no moral distinction. | 1/16/22 |
JF - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan I negate, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.FrameworkEthics are derived a priori from practical reason.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. We can't 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, so it can't be the basis of ethics.~3~ 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.That entails universal maxims because of 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.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 first willing ours.~2~ Only Korsgaard applies to justice.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 26 December 2021, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ ~3~ 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 which means you can't deny normative obligation.Offense~1~ Self-ownership is the ability to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 71-73, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 phs st recut ~2~ Space only changes the location of property acquisition, not its intrinsic nature, so there's no moral distinction. | 2/19/22 |
JF - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough MJ | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack I negate, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.FrameworkEthics are derived a priori from practical reason.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. We can't 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, so it can't be the basis of ethics.~3~ 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.That entails universal maxims because of 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.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 first willing ours.~2~ Only Korsgaard applies to justice.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 26 December 2021, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ Offense~1~ Self-ownership is the ability to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 71-73, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 phs st recut ~2~ Space appropriation uniquely avoids freedom violations – no violation exists if no owners exist.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 58-59, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 JS recut ~3~ Space only changes the location of property acquisition, not its intrinsic nature, so there's no moral distinction. | 1/29/22 |
JF - Korsgaard v4Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ridge MS | Judge: Anderson, Sam FrameworkThe value is justice as per the resolution, defined as giving each their due.Ethics are derived from practical reason instead of a posteriori knowledge.~1~ Is-ought gap – we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. For example, if I witness someone being punched, I can't conclude it's bad just from the knowledge that they are punched; I need prior justification.~2~ Reason is the highest moral authority because a) ability to reason is what defines a moral agent in the first place b) trying to find a way to escape reason requires the use of reason, conceding that it is valid.~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.~5~ Uncertainty – a posteriori ethics is subject to uncertainty. There's no way to know we're not dreaming, hallucinating, or in a simulation, so ethics derived from experience is unreliable.That entails universal maxims – an moral action should be able to be taken by any agent and cannot be self-contradictory.~1~ Law of non-contradiction – practical reason is universal; for example, 2 + 24 for any reasoner. Same applies for moral laws – acting recognizes the validity of others to take the action, which makes universal maxims a logical side constraint to other frameworks.==== ~2~ Arbitrariness – absent universal ethics, morality is subjective because it relies on individual interpretation of morality instead of concrete rules, making it useless.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 and are rational agents, making it incoherent to justify a standard without willing ours.~2~ Only my framework applies to justice.Miller 17 David Miller, Professor of Political Theory and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, "Justice," 26 June 2017, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 26 December 2021, pg. 1, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/~~#UtilJust ~ST~ Offense~1~ Self-ownership is the ability to interact with external objects. Appropriation allows you to exercise your own freedom on other things.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 71-73, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 phs st recut ~2~ No one owns space; thus, their rights cannot be violated.Feser 05 Edward Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION," 1 January 2005, Cambridge University Press, accessed 12 1 2022, Pg. 58-59, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1 JS recut ~3~ Space appropriation only changes the location and not the nature of property claims, which makes it just.Baca 93 Kurt Anderson Baca, Associate at Gallop, Johnson and Neuman, "Property Rights in Outer Space," 1993, SMU Scholar, accessed 13 January 2022, Pg. 1083-1084, https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol58/iss4/4/ JS recut ~4~ Libertarianism justifies appropriation.a) The conclusion of the framework is political libertarianism.Otteson 09 James R. Otteson, Professor of Philosophy and Economics at Yeshiva University, "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," Winter 2009, The Independent Review v13 n3, 14 January 2022, Pg. 391-395, https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_4_otteson.pdf TDI recut ====b) Libertarianism negates.==== | 2/19/22 |
ND - KorsgaardTournament: Apple Valley Minneapple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: McLoughlin, Samantha FrameworkThe metaethic is non-naturalism – ethics are derived from a priori principles.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It's impossible to derive prescriptive moral obligation from descriptive premises.~2~ 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, meaning only my framework solves for regressThat 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.Thus, the standard is consistency with universal maxims.~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 Offense====~1~ Striking intrinsically violates the contractual relationship workers agree to – it justifies employees' ability to violate contract but enforces employers' duty to uphold it.==== Breaking work contracts, which are promises of labor, is non-universalizable.Lumen no date Lumen Learning, "Kantian Ethics (Main Concepts)," no date, Lumen Learning, accessed 20 October 2021, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/kantian-ethics-main-concepts/ ~ST~ ~2~ A strike uses the employer and society as a means to an end.Fourie 17 Johan Fourie, professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University, "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers," 30 November 2017, accessed 19 October 2021, Other Papers, https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html JG recut Strikes in essential services reduces society to a mere means to an end.Loewy 2000 Erich H. Lowey, professor of bioethics at University of California, "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes," Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. Accessed 19 October 2021, Pg. 516-517, sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0963180100904092 JG recut Using people as a means to an end ignores their intrinsic freedom as a rational agent and is therefore non-universalizable.~3~ The role of the state is to uphold the standard by hindering rights violations – the state striking neglects their obligation.Williams no date Garrath Williams, senior lecturer and researcher at Lancaster University, "Hobbes, Thomas: Moral and Political Philosophy," no date, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 24 June 2021, https://iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/ | 11/6/21 |
ND - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Edina NK | Judge: Kurian, Michael FrameworkI negate, resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.The metaethic is non-naturalism – ethics are derived from a priori principles.~1~ Is-ought gap – we only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It's impossible to derive prescriptive moral 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 ethics would be escapable and therefore pointless.~3~ 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, meaning only my framework solves for regressThat 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 first willing ours.~2~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence 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~ Striking intrinsically violates the contractual relationship workers agree to – it justifies employees' ability to violate contract but enforces employers' duty to uphold it.==== Breaking work contracts, which are promises of labor, is non-universalizable.Lumen no date Lumen Learning, "Kantian Ethics (Main Concepts)," no date, Lumen Learning, accessed 20 October 2021, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/kantian-ethics-main-concepts/ ~ST~ ~2~ A strike uses the employer and society as a means to an end.Fourie 17 Johan Fourie, professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University, "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers," 30 November 2017, accessed 19 October 2021, Other Papers, https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html JG recut Strikes specifically in essential services reduces society to a mere means.Loewy 2000 Erich H. Lowey, professor of bioethics at University of California, "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes," Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. Accessed 19 October 2021, Pg. 516-517, sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0963180100904092 JG recut Using people as a means to an end ignores their intrinsic freedom as a rational agent and is therefore non-universalizable. | 11/20/21 |
ND - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Hsu, Jonathan FrameworkFirst, morality must begin from our ability to reason. When you take an action, you can always ask why you should take the action. When a reason for the action is formulated, however, you can ask again why we should consider this reason. These justifications continue on into infinity because you can always keep asking "why." The only way to solve this problem and get to the root of morality is to base ethics in reason itself, because asking for a reason to use reason concedes that it is important. Another justification for this basis is that the ability to reason to take action is what defines a moral agent. For example, a rock may roll down a hill, but because it lacks to ability to reason to make that decision, we would not say that morality applies to it.That means that all actions must be universalizable, making the standard of the debate consistency with universal maxims. Just like how 2 + 24 is universally true for all reasoners, morality must be universally true as well. Taking an action means you imply that others should be able to take the action because morality must apply the same way to both of you. That means certain actions are restricted. For example, theft is non-universalizable because it depends on the existence of property; however, if everyone were to steal, objects would be passed around with no consideration of their owners, destroying any conception of property in the first place.==== For clarification, morality is derived from whether it would logically contradict itself, not from adding up the consequences of certain actions. Adding 2 circles doesn't make anything more circular than it was before, just like how 2 actions aren't more universalizable than 1. Therefore, consequence-based arguments that do not pertain to the universalizability of actions, such as policy advantages, do not matter if I win the framework debate.Prefer additionally:~1~ Performativity – freedom is key to argumentation. Abiding by their ethical theory presupposes we have agency, making it incoherent to justify a standard without willing ours.~2~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence 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~ Striking violates the contracts that workers agree to because they enforce the employer's obligation to uphold the contract by continuing to employ the worker but allows workers to neglect their end of the contract.Gourevitch 16 Alex Gourevitch, assistant professor of political science at Brown University, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike," 2016, American Political Science Association, accessed 20 October 2021, Pg. 309, https://sci-hub.do/10.1017/S1537592716000049 ~ST~ Gourevitch does not agree with the terminal conclusion of the aff That's definitionally non-universalizable – to leverage power for some by breaking contract necessitates that others uphold the contract; otherwise, the contract would be nonexistent.Lumen no date Lumen Learning, "Kantian Ethics (Main Concepts)," no date, Lumen Learning, accessed 20 October 2021, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/kantian-ethics-main-concepts/ ~ST~ ~2~ A strike uses the employer and society as a means to an end.Fourie 17 Johan Fourie, professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University, "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers," 30 November 2017, accessed 19 October 2021, Other Papers, https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html JG recut Next, in medical services, strikes can only function through the intent of actively causing harm to patients.Loewy 2000 Erich H. Lowey, professor of bioethics at University of California, "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes," Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. Accessed 19 October 2021, Pg. 516-517, sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0963180100904092 JG recut These violate the test of universalizability – workers coerce their employers and intend to use societal suffering for personal gain, but undermining someone's freedom by forcing them to do something is non-universalizable because it requires the exercise of your own freedom. | 12/3/21 |
ND - Korsgaard v4Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Bronx Science NK | Judge: Hertzig, Chetan | 12/10/21 |
ND - Racist Strikes CPTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Hsu, Jonathan Counterplan: A just government ought to recognize a right of workers to strike except for strikes that advocate for racism.There has been a history of striking for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing black people.Keyes 17 Allison Keyes, museum correspondent, JUNE 30, 2017, "The East St. Louis Race Riot Left Dozens Dead, Devastating a Community on the Rise," Smithsonian Magazine, accessed 3 December 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/east-st-louis-race-riot-left-dozens-dead-devastating-community-on-the-rise-180963885/ SR Turns their offense because workers literally strike so that certain groups are excluded from employment, which causes all the oppressive impacts that the affirmative is trying to prevent. | 12/3/21 |
ND - Violent Strikes CPTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Bronx Science NK | Judge: Hertzig, Chetan Violent strikes in South Africa posed threats to human life, workplaces and the economy.Tenza 20 Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal) | 12/10/21 |
SO - Antibiotics CPTournament: New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Holy Ghost Prep CR | Judge: Harpster, Frank Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics because of overuse – extinction.Davies 08 Julian Davies, professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of British Columbia, "Resistance redux: Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind," 2008, EMBO, accessed 2 September 2021, https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2008.69 / ~ST~ Thus, the counterplan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should reduce intellectual property protections for medicines that are not antibiotics.The counterplan solves – patents avoid antibiotic resistance.Horowitz and Moehring 04 John B. Horowitz, professor of economics at Ball State University, H. Brian Moehring, business economist, "How property rights and patents affect antibiotic resistance," 13 June 2004, National Center for Biotechnology Information, accessed 31 August 2021, pg. ~#577-578, sci-hub.se/10.1002/hec.85 / ~ST~ | 10/16/21 |
SO - Bioterrorism DATournament: New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Summit AK | Judge: Eberhart, Henry That causes extinction.Walsh 20 Bryan Walsh, Future Correspondent for Axios, Editor of the Science and Technology Publication OneZero, Former Senior and International Editor at Time Magazine, BA from Princeton University, End Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World, Orion Publishing Group, 2020, accessed 11 October 2021, Limited Edition, p. 204-206 https://www.slideshare.net/hyzerory97501/2019-end-times-pdf-a-brief-guide-to-the-end-of-the-world-by-bryan-walsh-hachette-audio | 10/16/21 |
SO - Trad Bioterrorism DATournament: New York City Invitational Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Holy Ghost Prep CR | Judge: Harpster, Frank | 10/16/21 |
SO - Trad FreedomTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: University AT | Judge: Guda, Srini FrameworkI agree to the value of justice.Thus, the value criterion is consistency with equal freedom. This is for 3 reasons:~1~ All questions of justice are derived from freedom. Any action I take requires my ability to take that action in the first place, which means that any conception of value would depend on freedom. However, since my freedom is valuable, so is everyone else's because they have the same ability to act as I do. That means any action that violates someone's freedom is inherently contradictory because I would be exercising my freedom while undermining theirs.~2~ Freedom enables us to be responsible for actions. For example, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to steal a car, I cannot be held responsible since I was forced to take the action. That makes my framework a prior question to any other framework.~3~ My opponent's act of arguing against my framework would prove it true since the action of debating assumes they have the freedom to make arguments.That means the round is evaluated through the context of freedom.OffenseC1: Property RightsIf protections of intellectual property are reduced, people will be able to take each others' property without limitation.Van Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, Technology and Intellectual Property Attorney, Patent Practitioner at Van Dyke Intellectual Property Law, 7-17-2018, accessed 10-15-21, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut Affirming the resolution would imply that theft of intellectual property is acceptable, but theft is immoral and violates people's control over their property.C2: Freedom ViolationsEven if reducing IP protections has good effects, it's incompatible with moral obligation, which makes it wrong.The existence of intellectual property protections is an acceptable use of freedom because people should have the ability to control their property. To prevent these actions by getting rid of property protections is thereby immoral.Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor at the University of Toronto. Force and Freedom pg. 30-31. 2009 Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0 ACCS JM If one person has control over their intellectual property, that does not interfere with another person's ability to control their own intellectual property. It is immoral to stop people from doing this because the government cannot violate people's freedom for unjustified reasons. | 2/21/22 |
SO - Trad FreedomTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: University AT | Judge: Guda, Srini FrameworkI agree to the value of justice.Thus, the value criterion is consistency with equal freedom. This is for 3 reasons:~1~ All questions of justice are derived from freedom. Any action I take requires my ability to take that action in the first place, which means that any conception of value would depend on freedom. However, since my freedom is valuable, so is everyone else's because they have the same ability to act as I do. That means any action that violates someone's freedom is inherently contradictory because I would be exercising my freedom while undermining theirs.~2~ Freedom enables us to be responsible for actions. For example, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to steal a car, I cannot be held responsible since I was forced to take the action. That makes my framework a prior question to any other framework.~3~ My opponent's act of arguing against my framework would prove it true since the action of debating assumes they have the freedom to make arguments.That means the round is evaluated through the context of freedom.OffenseC1: Property RightsIf protections of intellectual property are reduced, people will be able to take each others' property without limitation.Van Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, Technology and Intellectual Property Attorney, Patent Practitioner at Van Dyke Intellectual Property Law, 7-17-2018, accessed 10-15-21, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut Affirming the resolution would imply that theft of intellectual property is acceptable, but theft is immoral and violates people's control over their property.C2: Freedom ViolationsEven if reducing IP protections has good effects, it's incompatible with moral obligation, which makes it wrong.The existence of intellectual property protections is an acceptable use of freedom because people should have the ability to control their property. To prevent these actions by getting rid of property protections is thereby immoral.Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor at the University of Toronto. Force and Freedom pg. 30-31. 2009 Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0 ACCS JM If one person has control over their intellectual property, that does not interfere with another person's ability to control their own intellectual property. It is immoral to stop people from doing this because the government cannot violate people's freedom for unjustified reasons. | 2/21/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/19/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/19/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/20/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/7/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/7/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
1/28/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
1/29/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/20/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/21/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/21/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
1/17/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/19/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/19/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/21/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
2/21/22 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
12/3/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
12/10/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
12/10/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
| |
11/6/21 | 24tengs@millburnorg |
|