Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz
AC - kant NC - tt nibs kant spec performativity bad 1AR - all ivis 2NR - kant spec 2AR - ivis tt bf theory
Lexington
3
Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: Evan Li
AC - skep NC - cant say skep bf th tt bad must have plan text ar - all nr - 1st shell ar - all skep
Lexington
5
Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Derek Ying
AC - collission NC - csa rob spec log con case ar - all rvis nr - csa 2AR - all
Lexington
Octas
Opponent: King CP | Judge: Chang, Chen, Misra
AC - mollow NC - fw misdisclosure case ar - same nr - case ar - ivi
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
G - Contact Info
Tournament: general | Round: 1 | Opponent: general | Judge: general Hey, i'm Rajat email: rajredsam@gmail.com contact me at 412-799-1100 Messenger works best for disclosure
1/15/22
G - Lex Note
Tournament: general | Round: 1 | Opponent: general | Judge: general My first time debating this year, so thats why i dont have anything on my wiki. You can check last year if you want some info. Reach out to me if you want any interps to be met/have any accomodations and I will try my best.
1/15/22
NC - Log Con
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Derek Ying Permissibility and presumption negate – a. the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation which outweighs on textuality b. Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false which outweighs on probability and if I’m textual I’m fair because the topic is the most predictable, so you could’ve engaged. The neg burden is to prove that the aff won’t logically happen in the status quo, and the aff burden is to prove that it will. Prefer: 1 Text – A Ought is “used to express logical consequence” as defined by Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought)Massa B Oxford Dictionary defines ought as “used to indicate something that is probable.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oughtMassa 2 Debatability – a) it focuses debates on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) moral oughts cannot guide action. Grey 11, Grey, JW. "The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get "Ought" from "Is?"" Ethical Realism. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. Massa The is/ought gap is a problem in moral philosophy where what is the case and what ought to be the case seem quite different, and it presents itself as the following question to David Hume: How do we know what morally ought to be the case from what is the case? Hume posed the question in A Treatise of Human Nature Book III Part I Section I: In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs, when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ‘tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason shou’d be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. It is here that Hume points out that philosophers argue about various nonmoral facts, then somehow conclude what ought to be the case (or what people ought to do) based on those facts (about what is the case). For example, we might find out that arsenic is poisonous and conclude that we ought not consume it. But we need to know how nonmoral facts can lead to moral conclusions. These two things seem unrelated. The is/ought gap isn’t doesn’t seem like a problem for nonmoral oughts—what we ought to do to accomplish our goals, fulfill our desires, or maintain our commitments. For example, we could say, “If you want to be healthy, you ought not consume arsenic.” However, it might be morally wrong to consume arsenic. If it is, we have some more explaining to do. Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition – treat this as a shell if they engage in it. Now negate: 1 Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it isn’t going to happen, because there is no way the congress is going to pass the plan during COVID, considering they have better things to do. 2 To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance, and half of the remaining distance, and so forth to infinity – thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in a finite amount of time. If movement is impossible, banning appropriation isn’t possible/a logical consequence of the resolution.
1/16/22
ROB - TT
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz The ROB is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution: 1 It’s the most logical – the better player wins the debate, because debate’s a game. You don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, but whoever wins the game. 2 It’s constitutive of the activity. Five dictionaries1 define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm2 as to prove true, so it’s the only burden that’s intrinsic to the activity. 3 Jurisdiction – the judge only has an obligation to vote on who supported or denied the resolution, anything else means they can hack for or against us or flip a coin based on their mood – meaning it’s a meta-constraint on anything else. 4 Fairness – other role of the ballots moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, making it unfair to debate. 5 Answers collapse since they presuppose that your arguments have truth to it. If you prove something false it means you’re actually saying ‘it’s true that their argument is false’. 6 Negating is harder – they have 1 more speech than me in which they can LBL ALL of the 2NR and pull off 2AR ethos. My name is Rajat Reddy, not “the aff”, “the affirmative debater”, or “the opponent”, so I meet all shells. 7 P+P negate – A more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways which outweighs on probability B real world policies require positive justification before being adopted which outweighs on empirics C the aff has to prove an obligation if that definition is legitimate which means lack of that obligation negates. Even under comparing worlds these arguments negate since it requires them to prove the statement that “the aff world is more desirable than the neg world” true. However, my args deny their ability to prove statements true so you presume neg. Also, I don’t need to win presumption to win, I just need to win any of the arguments below because the aff is false, not just no offense and if I’m textual I’m fair because the topic is the most predictable, so you could’ve engaged. D Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition – treat this as a shell if they engage in it. 1 To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance, and half of the remaining distance, and so forth to infinity – thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in a finite amount of time. 2 In order to say I want to fix x problem, you must say that you want x problem to exist, since it requires the desire of the problem’s existence to solve, which makes any moral attempt inherently immoral – meaning affirming is impossible. 3 you can’t be sure anything besides yourself exists – we could be deceived by a demon, dreaming, or in a simulation so the whole world could be nonexistent 4 Rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation. 5 The holographic principle is the most reasonable conclusion Stromberg 15 Joseph Stromberg- “Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched” https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics Vox. June 29th 2015 War Room Debate AI Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram. The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle. The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth. It might sound absurd. But when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three. "It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics." But there's an important distinction to be made here. There's no direct evidence that our universe actually is a two-dimensional hologram. These calculations aren't the same as a mathematical proof. Rather, they're intriguing suggestions that our universe could be a hologram. And as of yet, not all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally. 6 Paradox of tolerance- to be completely open to the aff we must exclude perspectives that wouldn’t be open to the aff which means it’s impossible to have complete tolerance for an idea since that tolerance relies on excluding a perspective. 7 Decision Making Paradox- in order to decide to do the affirmative we need a decision-making procedure to enact it, vote for it, and to determine it is a good decision. But to chose a decision-making procedure requires another meta level decision making procedure leading to infinite regress since every decision requires another decision to chose how to make a decision. 8 The Place Paradox- if everything exists in a place in space time, that place must also have a place that it exists and that larger place needs a larger location to infinity. Therefore, identifying ought statements is impossible since those statements assume acting on objects in the space-time continuum. 9 Grain Paradox- A single grain of millet makes no sound upon falling, but a thousand grains make a sound. But a thousand nothings cannot make something which means the physical world is paradoxical. 10 Space is defined as “period of time” according to Merriam webster, but going private companies going into a period of time can’t be unjust it makes no sense – so vote neg on presumption
1/15/22
T - FW
Tournament: Lexington | Round: Octas | Opponent: King CP | Judge: Chang, Chen, Misra Our interpretation is that the aff should only defend and garner offense of the implementation of a hypothetical policy where states eliminate their nuclear arsenals – violation: they don’t – to clarify, garnering offense off of the performative offense of the aff is also a violation – CX proves the link they don’t defend a policy action
Resolved means a legislative policy Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. “Resolved”. 1964. Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. Oxford Dictionary defines appropriation: the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
Our offense is predictable limits --- absent a predictable stasis, the Aff can defend anything, from an infinite number of literature bases, truisms, or personal experience. Any ground is concessionary, which causes a moral hazard where competitive incentives cause teams to choose smaller and inequitable topics. That ensures that the neg has nothing valuable to say, which hurts competitive equity, leads to worse debates, and makes any discussion qualitatively worse. Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters. At best they’re Extra-T, which is a voter for Limits, or Effects-T which is worse, since any small aff can spill up to the res. Impacts: 1 Fairness is an impact and comes first– A it’s an intrinsic good – some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity – if it didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be value to the game since judges could literally vote whatever way they wanted regardless of the competing arguments made B probability – your ballot can’t solve their impacts but it can solve mine – individual debates can’t alter subjectivity, but can rectify skews C They don’t get to weigh the aff – it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it. D controls i/l to inclusion F 2 Engagement – they transform debate into a monologue which means their arguments are presumptively false because they haven’t been subjected to well researched scrutiny – engagement is an independent voter since we cannot debate without the ability to precipitate 3 TVA – defend the consequences of how the effects of appropriating outer space is harmful to folk with disability who cant do certain things/aent given opps 4 SSD is good – it forces debaters to consider a controversial issue from multiple perspectives. Non-T affs allow individuals to establish their own metrics for what they want to debate leading to ideological dogmatism. Even if they prove the topic is bad, our argument is that the process of preparing and defending proposals is an educational benefit of engaging it. 5 No impact turns to T—exclusions are inevitable because we only have 45 minutes so it’s best to draw those exclusions along reciprocal lines to ensure a role for the negative
1/17/22
Th - CSA
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Derek Ying Interp – if the aff defends anything other than the entire resolution then they must provide a linked article or a card by an author who explicitly advocates against the 1AC advocacy. Violation – Standards – 1 Limits – there are infinite things you could defend outside the exact text of the resolution which pushes you to the limits of contestable arguments, even if your interp of the topic is better, the only way to verify if it’s substantively fair is proof of counter-arguments. 2 Shiftiness – having a counter-solvency advocate helps us conceptualize what their advocacy is and how it’s implemented. Intentionally ambiguous affirmatives we don’t know much about can’t spike out of DA’s and CP’s if they have an advocate that delineates these things. 3 Research – forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own view points, as well as encouraging in depth-research about their own position.
1/16/22
Th - Kant Spec
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Daniel Shahab Diaz Interpretation: If debaters defend a Kantian ethic, they must delineate which branch or subbranch of Kantianism they endorse in explicit text in the 1AC. To clarify, delineating a branch/sub-branch of kantianism is a good norm. There are several distinct ones Vleeschauwer 16Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer- Emeritus Professor of Philosophy “Kantianism” Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kantianism#ref27103 March 2016 UT AI - Epistemological Kantianism: those that conceive of the critical philosophy as an epistemology or a pure theory of (scientific) knowledge and methodology o Empirical Kantianism: Rooted in physiological or psychological inquiries o Logistic Kantianism: Stresses essences and the use of logic - Metaphysical Kantianism: Rely on inductive metaphysics to make conclusions about the world in accordance with sciences - Axiological Kantianism: concerned with value theory, branched, first, into an axiological approach which interpreted the methods of all three of Kant’s Critiques o Relativistic Kantianism: regarded the critical philosophy as a system of thought dependent upon social, cultural, and historical conditions The critical philosophy has been subjected to a variety of approaches and methods of interpretation. These can be reduced to three fundamental types: those that conceive of the critical philosophy as an epistemology or a pure theory of (scientific) knowledge and methodology, those that conceive of it as a critical theory of metaphysics or the nature of being (ultimate reality), and those that conceive of it as a theory of normative or valuational reflection parallel to that of ethics (in the field of action). Each of these types—known, respectively, as epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological Kantianism—can, in turn, be subdivided into several secondary approaches. Historically, epistemological Kantianism included such different attitudes as empirical Kantianism, rooted either in physiological or psychological inquiries; the logistic Kantianism of the Marburg school, which stressed essences and the use of logic; and the realistic Kantianism of the Austrian Alois Riehl. Metaphysical Kantianism developed from the transcendental idealism of German Romanticism to realism, a course followed by many speculative thinkers, who saw in the critical philosophy the foundations of an essentially inductive metaphysics, in accordance with the results of the modern sciences. Axiological Kantianism, concerned with value theory, branched, first, into an axiological approach (properly so-called), which interpreted the methods of all three of Kant’s Critiques—Critik der reinen Vernunft (1781, rev. ed. 1787; Critique of Pure Reason), Critik der practischen Vernunft (1788; Critique of Practical Reason), and Critik der Urteilskraft (1790; Critique of Judgment)—as normative disciplines of thought, and, second, into an eclectic or relativistic Kantianism, which regarded the critical philosophy as a system of thought dependent upon social, cultural, and historical conditions. The chief representatives of these submovements are identified in the historical sections below. Violation: They don’t Standards 1 Shiftiness-They can shift out of my turns based on whatever theory of the good they operate under due to the nature of a vague standard. Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of Kantianism coming first and I wouldn’t know until the 1ar which gives them access to multiple contingent standards. CX can’t resolve this impact and is independently bad because A Not flowed B skews 6 min of prep during the aff C They can proactively lie and there’s no way to check D debaters can be intentionally shady. 2 Real World- Philosophers need to be as specific as possible when delineating their theory since there are so many nuances and contextual applications of philosophy that require us to understand the core differences within the philosophy. That outweighs since debate has no pedagogical value without portable application. This spec shell isn’t regressive- it literally determines what framework the affirmative defends and how to link offense back to it
1/15/22
Th - Must read plan text
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: Evan Li Must read pln text 1 shiftinesz
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Derek Ying Interp – the aff must explicitly delineate a comprehensive role of the ballot and how the round plays out under it in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, they must – - Clarify how offense links to it, e.g. address the pre-fiat vs post-fiat distinction - Clarify whether theory is relevant under it - Clarify how to weigh between competing advocacies, e.g. if the ballot is determined by the flow Violation – there’s no text in the 1AC Standards – 1 Engagement – if I don’t know how the role of the ballot functions, it’s impossible for me to engage the aff, since knowing what counts as offense for me is a prerequisite to being able to make meaningful arguments that clash with yours. 2 Strategy Skew – you make formulating a strategy impossible since I don’t know what links to your evaluative mechanism. My interp means we know what a legitimate neg advocacy is, otherwise you can make up reasons mine doesn’t link to the role of the ballot in the next speech.
1/16/22
Th - Skep bf th is bad
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: Evan Li Interpretaion: can’t say skep comes before theory A kills theory educatio and norming B theory edu o/ws phi
1/15/22
Th - TT bad
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 3 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: Evan Li Interp - all arguments related to affirming or negating the plan made must be consistent with a comparative worlds paradigm Violation: they read truth-testing Standards: 1 Ground and strat skew – their interp imposes an absolute proof on us – gives them functionally infinite ground through skeptical arguments and logical tautologies – comparative worlds is a 1:1 burden structure that makes debate better and reciprocal. 2 Advocacy skills – their interp leads to defensive offense, where risks of skepticism are weaponized to avoid progress – debaters become sophists instead of advocates– biggest impact since it provides debate intrinsic value – it harms topic ed and clash. 3 Comparative worlds is a form of truth testing – it decides whether the statement is true based on which world is better – we’ve isolated fairness disadvantages to other forms of truth testing which answers their offense.