Northern Valley Song Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 2 | immac heart ss | michael harris |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 4 | saranya singh | lay |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Doubles | monta vista rd | barquin, clark, astacio |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 6 | marlborough lk | barquin if you ever see barquin, im very sorry about this round |
|
|
| |
| all | 2 | you | you |
|
| ||
| all | 3 | u | u |
|
| ||
| apple valley | 2 | millburn st | jwc |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 3 | minnetonka bd | forgot |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | Doubles | ava manaker rematch | panel |
|
|
| |
| harvard | 1 | sharon rg | luka |
|
|
| |
| lexington | 1 | tampa jesuit mh | amy nyberg |
|
|
| |
| lexington | 6 | sosa | tomasi |
|
|
| |
| meadows | 1 | harvard westlake nl | passa pungchai |
|
|
| |
| meadows | 3 | forgot | barquin |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 2 | marlborough ms | larry |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 4 | st agnes eh | tej |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 4 | st agnes eh | tej |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | Doubles | immaculate heart bc | zhou, larson, bhat |
|
|
| |
| strake | 1 | westside mm | megan |
|
|
| |
| strake | 4 | southlake carrol pk | pp man |
|
|
| |
| strake | 6 | memorial dx | sam larson |
|
|
| |
| uk | 2 | strath haven am | gordon |
|
|
| |
| uk | 3 | forgot | michael fain |
|
|
| |
| uk | 6 | westwood wy | anand rao |
|
|
| |
| uk | Octas | unionville pw | panel |
|
|
| |
| valley | 1 | archit kumar | scopa |
|
|
| |
| valley | 5 | jayden shin | rohit lackshman |
|
|
| |
| valley | 4 | oh my ghosh | peepee |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 2 | Opponent: immac heart ss | Judge: michael harris 1ac - kant v4 |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 4 | Opponent: saranya singh | Judge: lay 1ac - lay |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Doubles | Opponent: monta vista rd | Judge: barquin, clark, astacio 1ac - kant v4 |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 6 | Opponent: marlborough lk | Judge: barquin if you ever see barquin, im very sorry about this round 1ac - kant v4 |
| apple valley | 2 | Opponent: millburn st | Judge: jwc ac - pettit |
| apple valley | 3 | Opponent: minnetonka bd | Judge: forgot ac - pettit ) |
| apple valley | Doubles | Opponent: ava manaker rematch | Judge: panel 1ac - pettit |
| harvard | 1 | Opponent: sharon rg | Judge: luka 1ac - kant |
| lexington | 1 | Opponent: tampa jesuit mh | Judge: amy nyberg lay round |
| lexington | 6 | Opponent: sosa | Judge: tomasi 1ac - monism |
| meadows | 1 | Opponent: harvard westlake nl | Judge: passa pungchai ac - kant v4 |
| meadows | 3 | Opponent: forgot | Judge: barquin 1ac - kant v1 |
| peninsula | 2 | Opponent: marlborough ms | Judge: larry 1ac - contracts |
| peninsula | 4 | Opponent: st agnes eh | Judge: tej 1ac - monism |
| peninsula | 4 | Opponent: st agnes eh | Judge: tej 1ac - monism |
| peninsula | Doubles | Opponent: immaculate heart bc | Judge: zhou, larson, bhat 1ac - contracts v2 |
| strake | 1 | Opponent: westside mm | Judge: megan 1ac - contracts |
| strake | 4 | Opponent: southlake carrol pk | Judge: pp man 1ac - contracts |
| strake | 6 | Opponent: memorial dx | Judge: sam larson 1ac - contracts |
| uk | 2 | Opponent: strath haven am | Judge: gordon 1ac - kant |
| uk | 3 | Opponent: forgot | Judge: michael fain AC - Evergreening and Covid |
| uk | 6 | Opponent: westwood wy | Judge: anand rao ac - kant |
| uk | Octas | Opponent: unionville pw | Judge: panel 1ac - kant |
| valley | 1 | Opponent: archit kumar | Judge: scopa 1ac - burdens |
| valley | 5 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: rohit lackshman 1ac - burdens v2 |
| valley | 4 | Opponent: oh my ghosh | Judge: peepee 1ac - burdens v2 |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
)))
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: all | Round: 2 | Opponent: you | Judge: you | 7/13/21 |
G - Broken InterpsTournament: all | Round: 3 | Opponent: u | Judge: u Nano Nagle Dubs: Nano Nagle Octas: | 10/25/21 |
JF - AC - ContractsTournament: strake | Round: 1 | Opponent: westside mm | Judge: megan FrameworkI affirm.First, the meta-ethic is ethical internalism, or the belief that moral principles cannot be created independent of human interests –1~ Moral truths independent of one's interests cannot give people reasons for acting morally.David Gauthier, "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS 2~ Disagreement – the fact that there's widespread disagreement in morality is best explained by reference to there being no universal good rather than a majority of people with the capacity for reason having no access to moral facts – fact that objective facts in math or science have consensus on its basic foundations further proves.3~ Regress – no universal moral fact exists since we can demand justification for any moral fact infinitely – means any moral principle must stop with an arbitrary preference else there would be no principle at all so externalism collapses.4~ Externalism collapses – the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that's generated from it5~ Open Question Argument – Open Question: Its impossible for goodness to be synonymous with an observable natural property like pleasure, since if we ask "is X good", either A) X is the exact same thing as good, in which case our answer is the meaningless tautology "good is good" or B) X is not the same as goodness.6~ Observation or perception of objective values are impossible so no unifying conception of the good can be found.J.L Mackie, 1977, "Inventing Right and Wrong", Chapter 1 The Subjectivity of Values JS Next, each person justifies what actions they take based on their own self-interest – the ability to create preferences and interests is constitutive of being a rational agent.David Gauthier (2), "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the only functioning ethical theory is contractarianism, where agents create mutual constraint to benefit all parties involved with the expectation that others will adhere to agreeements.David Gauthier (3), "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the standard is consistency with mutually agreed upon contracts. Prefer the standard –1~ Actor Specificity – contractarianism is constitutive to the formation of states since a state is always an artificial construction that only exists insofar as a group of people want it to exist in order to restrain their ability to commit wrongdoing – that means the state inherently is just a contract of mutual self-restraint which means engaging in state action concedes my framework.2~ My framework is a tautology – promises create obligations by definition.Searle, John R. (1964). How to derive "ought" from "is". Philosophical Review 73 (1):43-58. JS 3~ Ought is defined as express~ing~ obligation – proving a legal obligation is sufficient for proving an ought statement independent of morality.Glos 69 , The mutual relation of law and ethics can profitably be investigated only if ethics is understood as a normative science.31 If we compare legal norms with ethical norms, it appears that the contents of ethical norms are in agreement with a given concept or principle, whereas legal norms originate from a certain lawgiver regardless of contents. It follows that legal and ethical norms may be likened to two circles which cover the same area: legal and ethical norms may coincide, and the same norm~s~ may at the same time be both a legal and an ethical norm; but there are legal norms the contents of which have no relevance in ethics (norms regulating highway traffic), and there are legal norms which may contradict ethical norms (norms according to which a soldier is bound to fight and kill). OffenseI'll defend whole rez.The Outer Space Treaty affirms – "national appropriation" in Article 2 applies to all entities under a national sovereign – that's the best legal meaning and most coherent.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS This is in line with the spirit of the treaty.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (2) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS OST not mentioning private entities flows aff – accepted legal interpretation means this proves lack of intent to exclude private entities.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (3) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS UnderviewThe ROB is to vote for the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution – anything else moots 6 minutes of the aff since it's predicated on proving the truth of the rez – prefer it:Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity . This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are verified, meaning that only truth testing is jurisdictional.Ground- truth testing allows for the more ground than any other ROB since it allows for a literal infinite amount of arguments on a range of argumentation style giving the most breadth and depth of topic and phil edCircularity- debate is a question of truth or falsity, and the aff advocacy is the focus of every round- all arguments against this concede it's validity, since it's premised on your own argument being trueGrant me 1ar theory otherwise the NC can read 7 minutes of abuse and then I cant check and loseDTD on theory to deter future abuse and set the best norms- dta incentivizes strategic concessions that don't rectify any abuseNo 2nr RVIs cuz a 6 minute 2nr sandbagging RVIs makes the 2ar impossible to win, disincentivizing countering abuse.No new 2NR paradigm issues or theory because you can make whole new arguments with 6 minutes forcing me to respond in only half the time creating a 6:3 skew, and can be solved by reading in the 1NFairness is a voter – it's a prerequisite to evaluation of the round as debate's a competitive activity, which require the better debater win, but that's impossible when there's a skew against usAccept all aff paradigm issues in the 1AR– the 1AR is too short to win both paradigm issues and a theory shell since we need to also respond to 7 minutes of the 1NC, so it's most fair | 12/18/21 |
JF - AC - Contracts v2Tournament: peninsula | Round: Doubles | Opponent: immaculate heart bc | Judge: zhou, larson, bhat FrameworkI affirm.First, the meta-ethic is ethical internalism, or the belief that moral principles cannot be created independent of human interests –1~ Moral truths independent of one's interests cannot give people reasons for acting morally.David Gauthier, "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS 2~ Disagreement – the fact that there's widespread disagreement in morality is best explained by reference to there being no universal good rather than a majority of people with the capacity for reason having no access to moral facts – fact that objective facts in math or science have consensus on its basic foundations further proves.3~ Regress – no universal moral fact exists since we can demand justification for any moral fact infinitely – means any moral principle must stop with an arbitrary preference else there would be no principle at all.4~ Externalism collapses – the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that's generated from it5~ Open Question Argument – Its impossible for goodness to be synonymous with an observable natural property like pleasure, since if we ask "is X good", either A) X is the exact same thing as good, in which case our answer is the meaningless tautology "good is good" or B) X is not the same as goodness.6~ Evolution explains our evaluative judgements, which leaves no room for independent moral facts.Street '6 ~Sharon Street, phil prof at NYU, "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value, Philosophical Studies (2006) 127:109-166~ AG Next, each person justifies what actions they take based on their own self-interest – the ability to create preferences and interests is constitutive of being a rational agent.David Gauthier (2), "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the only functioning ethical theory is contractarianism, where agents create mutual constraint to benefit all parties involved with the expectation that others will adhere to agreeements.David Gauthier (3), "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the standard is consistency with mutually agreed upon contracts. Prefer the standard –1~ Actor Specificity – contractarianism is constitutive to the formation of states since a state is always an artificial construction that only exists insofar as a group of people want it to exist in order to restrain their ability to commit wrongdoing – that means the state inherently is just a contract of mutual self-restraint which means engaging in state action concedes my framework.2~ My framework is a tautology – the act of promising is by definition placing oneself under an obligation to perform or refrain from some future action – it is tautologically true that if one is under an obligation, then they are obligated – thus one has a normative obligation to follow their promises by definition.3~ Rule util is better and necessitates the NC. Thrasher 13John J. Thrasher, Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department and the Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy at Chapman University, Reconciling Justice and Pleasure in Epicurean Contractarianism, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2 (April 2013), pp. 423-436 /AHS PB 4~ Utilitarianism requires a system of individual preference in order to be normative, which means my framework is a prior question.Gauthier, David P. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print /AHS PB BRACKETED FOR CLARITY AdvocacyI'll defend whole rez. Here's spec:Private entity meansLaw Insider, , "Private entity Definition: 855 Samples," https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-entity JS We'll defend all of them.Unjust means: Appropriation is:Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/appropriation JS Is indicates present tense:Merriam Webster, "Definition of IS," No Publication, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is OffenseThe Outer Space Treaty affirms – "national appropriation" in Article 2 applies to all entities under a national sovereign – that's the best legal meaning and most coherent.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS This is in line with the spirit of the treaty.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (2) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS OST not mentioning private entities flows aff – accepted legal interpretation means this proves lack of intent to exclude private entities.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (3) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS UnderviewThe ROB is to vote for the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution – anything else moots 6 minutes of the aff since it's predicated on proving the truth of the rez – prefer it:Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity . This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are verified, meaning that only truth testing is jurisdictional.Ground- truth testing allows for the more ground than any other ROB since it allows for a literal infinite amount of arguments on a range of argumentation style giving the most breadth and depth of topic and phil edCircularity- debate is a question of truth or falsity, and the aff advocacy is the focus of every round- all arguments against this concede it's validity, since it's premised on your own argument being trueGrant me 1ar theory otherwise the NC can read 7 minutes of abuse and then I cant check and loseDTD on theory to deter future abuse and set the best norms- dta incentivizes strategic concessions that don't rectify any abuseNo 2nr RVIs cuz a 6 minute 2nr sandbagging RVIs makes the 2ar impossible to win, disincentivizing countering abuse.No new 2NR paradigm issues or theory because you can make whole new arguments with 6 minutes forcing me to respond in only half the time creating a 6:3 skew, and can be solved by reading in the 1NFairness is a voter – it's a prerequisite to evaluation of the round as debate's a competitive activity, which require the better debater win, but that's impossible when there's a skew against usAccept all aff paradigm issues in the 1AR– the 1AR is too short to win both paradigm issues and a theory shell since we need to also respond to 7 minutes of the 1NC, so it's most fair | 1/23/22 |
JF - AC - KantTournament: harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: sharon rg | Judge: luka New affs badCounter-interp: The affirmative does not have to disclose their aff.1~ Prep skew: new affs are key to aff strategy. Neg already has an 11 side bias and having new affs checks back the massive reactivity advantage enjoyed by negs. The element of surprise is one of the aff's biggest advantages and their interp destroys that. Outweighs on reversibility—the neg can check new affs with generics but affs have no check to good prep outs without new affs.2~ Research Incentive: two independent links: A) disclosing new affs before the round kills incentive to innovate and explore outer edges of topic literature. B) disclosing new affs kills negs incentive to prep and drill generics that apply to all affs like Topicality, agent CPs, impact turns and generic K's. Their interp forces a race to the top where the same 5 affs get read every round, causing stale and recycled debates. My interp encourages innovation and better research skills for both debaters—outweighs on portability because this is a key real world skill.3Your author mentions Kant I affirm. Prefer an a priori basis for ethics founded on practical reason.First, only necessary justification can form knowledge – anything else faces the problem of perception.Lyons, Jack, "Epistemological Problems of Perception", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/perception-episprob/. JS Second, regress – only practical reason resolves it.Velleman (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19) Third, only a priori ethics and reason can resolve injustices and explain the previous failures of reason – anything else distorts moral judgement.Hill, Thomas and Boxill, Bernard, 2001, "Kant and Race." http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/courses/465_11/readings/Race_and_Racism.pdf JS Fourth, experience is the faculty we use to describe the world, but that can't correlate with normative truth because of the gap between what is and what ought to be the case.Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves anymore than 2+24 can be true only for me. Non contradiction is a side constraint on ethics since no principle can be simultaneously true and false as the idea of truth excludes the possibility of falsity. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. This requires a right to autonomy – universalizing coercion means others could violate your right to coerce, which prevents you from acting on your maxim. ==== Impact calc –First, use epistemic confidence –1~ Modesty collapses because we need to be confident in modesty before using it2~ It's impossible to verify the exact probability of moral theories, so modesty only functions properly in extremely high impacts but fails as a general moral rule.Second, prefer ideal theory – it's compatible with nonideal theory but is also a prerequisite to being able to guide action.Shelby 13 ~Tommie Shelby, "Racial Realities and Corrective Justice: A Reply to Charles Mills," Critical Philosophy of Race, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2013), pp. 145-162~ AG Prefer our standard –First, we must treat others as ends in themselves – humanity, or the creation of practical identities, is an intrinsic value that is the foundation of ethics.Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press. JS Second, Pain is only conditionally rather than intrinsically bad.Korsgaard, Christine M. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996. Lindale PP Third, performativity – any attempt to justify a violation of rights commits performative contradiction.Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics /AHS PB Fourth, equality – arguing that a moral law applies to one but not another implies that there is an inherent distinction between individuals – that allows individuals to justify any action by saying that the moral law doesn't apply to them.AdvocacyI contend that the private appropriation of outer space is unjust. Here's definitions for spec purposes.Appropriation is:Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/appropriation JS Is indicates a quality of being in the present:Merriam Webster, "Definition of IS," No Publication, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is JS OffenseNow affirm:1~ Property right is impossible absent state jurisdiction – anything else is an illegitimate unilateral claim of right. That affirms – states like the US aren't claiming jurisdiction over space now and there's no rightful governing authority yet, so appropriation is a unilateral violation of right.2~ International Law – the OST says appropriation's impermissible by private entities.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS That affirms –A~ Promise breaking is non-universalizable – if everyone broke their promises for their own ends, noone would take any promise seriously which undermines the very institution of promising in the first place, preventing the achieving of one's end. | 2/18/22 |
ND - AC - PettitTournament: apple valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: millburn st | Judge: jwc FrameworkEvery agent must recognize their ability to set and pursue ends as a necessary good not contingent on the will of others.Gewirth , Alan (1984) "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative," American Journal of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5 *bracketed for gendered language* Impacts:~A~ Agency is inescapable since to engage in any enterprise is to engage in agency. Even when agents attempt to assess whether they should be agents, they utilize rational thought in order to undergo such reasoning.~B~ Agency is a precondition to be able to act because it requires you recognize yourself as the cause of your own actions, otherwise the action would not be yours and would lack moral significance.There are two models of freedom—the non-interference model and the non-domination model. The non-interference model holds that freedom is violated if someone is actually interfered with, whereas the non-domination model holds that freedom is violated if someone has the mere capacity to interfere arbitrarily.Only freedom as non-domination is able to ground political legitimacy and recognize the unfreedom of those under subjugating powers.Pettit, Philip. "Freedom as Antipower." 1996, Ethics, vol. 106, no. 3, University of Chicago Press, , pp. 576–604, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2382272. JS Thus, the standard is consistency with freedom as non-domination.Impact calc – It's not a question of maximizing non-domination in certain instances, but rather having institutional constraints that prevent domination – we resolve the infeasibility of direct util calc.Pettit 99 Pettit, Philip (Professor at Princeton). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, USA (September 30, 1999). Implications:1 - Takes out util—even if the act is done to prevent domination it is still arbitrary because there is nothing preventing the state from doing otherwise.2- Takes out non-interference – a slave with a benevolent master might be well off, but they're not free since the master can choose to arbitrarily interfere.Prefer additionally –1~ Civic republicanism provides key tools for fighting oppression.Marti 13 Jose Luis Marti (Associate Professor of Law at Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona (Spain)). "Civic republicanism: a North Star for hard times." OurKingdom. January 16th, 2013. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jose-luis-marti/civic-republicanism-north-star-for-hard-times 2~ Any genuine discourse requires each participant recognize the value of non-domination.Pettit, PHILIP. "THE DOMINATION COMPLAINT." Nomos, vol. 46, 2005, pp. 87–117. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24220143. Accessed 19 Aug. 2020. JS ~ Non-domination is a primary and intrinsic good. PettitPettit, Philip (Professor at Princeton). (September 30, 1999) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, USA). AdvocacyDefinition of unconditional right to strike:NLRB 85 ~National Labor Relations Board; "Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947: Volume 1," Jan 1985; https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=7o1tA__v4xwCandrdid=book-7o1tA__v4xwCandrdot=1~~ Justin I'll defend the resolution as worded. Now affirm:1~ Structural domination: Labor markets are intrinsically tied with relations of domination due to lack of bargaining power – this justifies an unconditional right to strike.Gourevitch, Alex. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2016, pp. 307–323., doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049. JS 2~ Personal Domination: transactions of labour power are only made possible through arbitrary power – a right to strike is key.Gourevitch, Alex. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2016, pp. 307–323., doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049. JS Current legal norms effectively eliminate a right to strike – the aff's philosophical defense grounds an unconditional right to strike that's distinct from the traditional voluntarist version, Gourevitch 4:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory otherwise there's no way to check infinite abuse.2~ There's no permissibility triggers in the aff, but it affirms – a) Decision theory – it's epistemically safer to affirm a permissible action since that would merely be supererogatory, but if you make a mistake in your thinking and don't do an obligatory action then you've done a moral wrong – b) Reciprocity – They have an exclusive layer of the debate in the form of topicality, so we should have permissibility – c) Text – ought is "used to express appropriateness" according to dictionary.com which means that permissibility logically affirms3~ No 2nr theory – anything else kills aff strategy since the 2ar is too short to line by line the entire 2nr, but theory can completely screw over the aff's strat.4~ Use comparative worlds – that entails voting for the debater who proves their respective resolutional side produces a better world under a normative framework.~A~ Textuality – Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law ~B~ Topic Education – Comparative worlds ensures we get the most contestation about the philosophical underpinnings of the resolution and not random NIBs which o/w because it's constitutive to LD debate itself.~C~ Reciprocity – Truth testing justifies infinite NIBs which make it impossible for the aff to respond to in the time crunched 1AR since there's a 2:1 burden, comparative worlds solves since things like a prioris or solipsism don't actively prove that the neg's world is better.5~ Reject out of round violations – a~ it's non-jurisdictional since the judge can only vote on the better debater in the context of the round so they can't vote on things out-of-round – b~ unverifiable since any violation could've been hacked or photoshopped.6~ No neg fiat! It's Irreciprocal and IllegitimatePlants 89 ~J. Daniel Plants, Baylor University, 1989, "Counterplans Re-Visited: The Last Sacred Cow?," Punishment Paradigms : Pros And Cons, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Plants1989Punishment.htm~~ AG | 11/6/21 |
NOTE ABOUT LEX ROUND 6Tournament: peninsula | Round: 4 | Opponent: st agnes eh | Judge: tej | 1/23/22 |
NOTE ABOUT LEX ROUND 6Tournament: peninsula | Round: 4 | Opponent: st agnes eh | Judge: tej | 1/23/22 |
SO - AC - BurdensTournament: valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: archit kumar | Judge: scopa 1AC vs Lexington AKBurdenThe neg burden is to prove that it is possible to own intellectual property while the aff burden is to prove it impossible –1~ The burden logically affirms – for a statement to be true, its foundational assumptions must be justified since by modus ponens a conclusion can only follow when its assumptions are justified – protections on intellectual property of medicines presuppose the existence of IP in the first place, meaning that proving the burden proves that IP protections are incoherent and thus ought not exist as all moral statements are constrained by the rules of logic.2~ Topic Ed – the question of whether inventors can have exclusive rights to IP is the basis for discussions related to IP on medicines.WTO, ~World Trade Organization~, 2018, "THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INVENTIONS IN VIETNAM" https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2018/chapter_16_2018_e.pdf JS Topic ed outweighs – we only have 2 months to discuss the topic but years to access any other form of education3~ Reciprocity – the burden creates a 1:1 burden since we prove non-existence and you prove existence of IP, which is most reciprocal – our burden is key to prevent NIBs like skep from being read since they don't prove the existence of IP – skews time since we have to respond to all of them but you can extend 1 to win.4~ Interpretation: If the aff justifies their burden and the text is that the aff burden is to prove that it is impossible to own intellectual property, then the neg must concede to that burden as it is contextualized in the AC and debate under it. Violation's preemptive. Prefer –1~ Strat Skew: shifting the burden structure in nullifies 6 minutes of the AC and forces me to restart the debate in the 1AR at a massive time disadvantage.2~ Time Skew: 7-6, 4-3 rebuttal time difference is a problem. Helping me choose burden structure allows me to combat time skew since I can craft a framework that compensates for impossibly short 1Ars by preventing uplayering3~ Debateability: there are multiple contradictory interpretations of the resolution: the aff needs to be able to pick one in order to start the debate and form an advocacy, which means you should accept mine.Fairness is a voter: a~ it's an intrinsic good – debate is fundamentally a game and some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity, b~ every argument concedes its authority since they presume they'll actually be evaluated unbiasedlyNo RVI's on 1AC or 1AR theory – a~ otherwise neg sandbags against theory and wins on the RVI – b~ NC speeches are longer so affs don't check abuse in fear of a massive 1NC dump.Contention 1The metaethic is perspectivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand who someone else is or what they think. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Ambiguity – everyone can assert their own claims to be true and refuse contestation since that's most beneficial – this means we always fight over who is correct. This is irresolvable because there is no mediator to adjudicate the dispute and tell who is correct – we just fight forever~2~ Action Theory—the imposition of your world view through action necessitates violence against the other since it de-legitimizes their perspective.This state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; it must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures. Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it because it outweighs on bindingness: Only the sovereign is able to get everyone to follow her rule and enforce the law, it creates motivations for any moral rules we create. Otherwise, the framework collapses and truth becomes impossible.I'll defend the resolution as worded. Now affirm –1~ Property rights don't exist.Lopata, Benjamin B. "Property Theory in Hobbes." Political Theory, vol. 1, no. 2, Sage Publications, Inc., 1973, pp. 203–18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/191194. JS 2~ Rights don't exist since a constitutive feature of rights is that they cannot be violated but that's a hindrance on the sovereign which we prove is bad.No neg turns – a~ procedural offense about what solves the state of nature outweighs, the state cannot oppose these procedures as their very existence as sovereigns constitutively requires them – b~ we fiat that states voluntarily will a reduction in IP rights in medicines so that's the state's will – the actor is not the WTO but the nations who happen to be in the WTO meaning that this is the most logical interp of the rez.Contention 2Intellectual Property doesn't exist:1~ Exclusivity – property requires exclusivity because if I take your property then you are hindered from using it, else we wouldn't have been incentivized to create a system of property in the first place – that doesn't apply to ideas since me having an idea cannot hinder another from thinking about the same idea.2~ One cannot own an idea – just as how one cannot own a number or how Einstein cannot own relativity, one cannot own the mere idea of a medicine – the distinction between inventions and discoveries doesn't apply since every invention is a mere application of a discovery.3~ Ideas are social products – individuals exist within a society who must provide them with the requisite knowledge and background to create new thought – thus creation of knowledge is a shared enterprise that cannot be owned by an individual, just as how an individual cannot own a building that an entire town built by laying the last brick.4~ Reject consequentialist justifications for IP's existence – a~ they only prove that it would be beneficial to think that IP exists, but doesn't prove that it actually does – if I was given a billion dollars to believe in Flat Earth theory, that doesn't prove its truth even if it produces good results – b~ it requires calculation of the consequences of actions, but calculation itself is an action that must be calculated as an action which regresses and means it's impossible to use utilContention 3Reject property independently:1~ It is impossible to create a brightline for what one must do to turn an object into property – we think that etching a design on a pebble may grant you ownership of the pebble but etching the same design onto a mountain doesn't grant you ownership of the mountain which makes defining ownership impossible and arbitrary.2~ Property rights are unjust since one who has property also has the means to create more property whereas people with less property don't have these means which makes the ability for property acquisition based on arbitrary and random factors which cannot be just.3~ Ownership presumes that there is an agent that owns the property – however, personal identity does not exist.Unger, Peter 1979. I Do Not Exist. Perception and Identity, 235–251. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-04862-5_10 JS 4~ Property falls into a contradiction since by having exclusive ownership over an object you are preventing others from appropriating it which denies them their right to propertyUnderview~1~ 1AR theory a) we get it since otherwise it would be impossible to check infinite NC abuse b) drop the debater – Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell. AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round.~2~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n. And, all neg interps are counter interps since the aff takes an implicit stance on every issue which means any neg theory interp requires an RVI to become offensive.~3~ And, reject theory on spikes –it would be a contradiction since they indict each other, but prefer mine since they are lexically prior. And, the neg may not read meta-theory – I only have time to check abuse 1 time but you can do it in the nc and 2n, up-layering my attempt means we never get to the best norm~4~ The neg may not read necessary but insufficient burdens a) Strat Skew- You can uplayer with 7 minutes of NIBs I have to beat back before I can access offense which is terrible for a 4 min 1ar, it is impossible for aff to overwhelm the neg because you always have longer times and reactive speeches to overcome any unfairness b) Norms- It would justify infinite neg abuse because neg would just read 7 min of auto-negate arguments which is infinite abuse | 9/25/21 |
SO - AC - Burdens v2Tournament: valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: oh my ghosh | Judge: peepee Nailbomb ACDefinitionMy wiki is very beautiful I demand speaks:https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Northern20Valley/Song20Neg====https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Northern20Valley/Song20Aff====BurdenThe neg burden is to prove that it is possible to own intellectual property while the aff burden is to prove it impossible –1~ The burden logically affirms – for a statement to be true, its foundational assumptions must be justified since by modus ponens a conclusion can only follow when its assumptions are justified – protections on intellectual property of medicines presuppose the existence of IP in the first place, meaning that proving the burden proves that IP protections are incoherent and thus ought not exist as all moral statements are constrained by the rules of logic.2~ Topic Ed – the question of whether inventors can have exclusive rights to IP is the basis for discussions related to IP on medicines.WTO, ~World Trade Organization~, 2018, "THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INVENTIONS IN VIETNAM" https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2018/chapter_16_2018_e.pdf JS Topic ed outweighs – we only have 2 months to discuss the topic but years to access any other form of education3~ Reciprocity – the burden creates a 1:1 burden since we prove non-existence and you prove existence of IP, which is most reciprocal – our burden is key to prevent NIBs like skep from being read since they don't prove the existence of IP – skews time since we have to respond to all of them but you can extend 1 to win.4~ Interpretation: If the aff justifies their burden and the text is that the aff burden is to prove that it is impossible to own intellectual property, then the neg must concede to that burden as it is contextualized in the AC and debate under it. Violation's preemptive. Prefer –1~ Strat Skew: shifting the burden structure in nullifies 6 minutes of the AC and forces me to restart the debate in the 1AR at a massive time disadvantage.2~ Time Skew: 7-6, 4-3 rebuttal time difference is a problem. Helping me choose burden structure allows me to combat time skew since I can craft a framework that compensates for impossibly short 1Ars by preventing uplayering3~ Debateability: there are multiple contradictory interpretations of the resolution: the aff needs to be able to pick one in order to start the debate and form an advocacy, which means you should accept mine.Fairness is a voter: a~ it's an intrinsic good – debate is fundamentally a game and some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity, b~ every argument concedes its authority since they presume they'll actually be evaluated unbiasedlyContention 1The metaethic is perspectivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand who someone else is or what they think. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Ambiguity – everyone can assert their own claims to be true and refuse contestation since that's most beneficial – this means we always fight over who is correct. This is irresolvable because there is no mediator to adjudicate the dispute and tell who is correct – we just fight forever~2~ Action Theory—the imposition of your world view through action necessitates violence against the other since it de-legitimizes their perspective.This state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; it must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures. Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer it because it outweighs on bindingness: Only the sovereign is able to get everyone to follow her rule and enforce the law, it creates motivations for any moral rules we create. Otherwise, the framework collapses and truth becomes impossible.Now affirm –1~ Property rights don't exist.Lopata, Benjamin B. "Property Theory in Hobbes." Political Theory, vol. 1, no. 2, Sage Publications, Inc., 1973, pp. 203–18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/191194. JS 2~ Rights don't exist since a constitutive feature of rights is that they cannot be violated but that's a hindrance on the sovereign which we prove is bad.No neg turns – a~ procedural offense about what is necessary to resolve the state of nature outweighs, the state cannot oppose these procedures as their very existence as sovereigns constitutively requires them – b~ we fiat that states voluntarily will a reduction in IP rights in medicines so that's the state's will – the actor is not the WTO but the nations who happen to be in the WTO meaning that this is the most logical interp of the rez.Contention 2Intellectual Property doesn't exist:1~ Exclusivity – property requires exclusivity because if I take your property then you are hindered from using it, else we wouldn't have been incentivized to create a system of property in the first place – that doesn't apply to ideas since me having an idea cannot hinder another from thinking about the same idea.2~ One cannot own an idea – just as how one cannot own a number or how Einstein cannot own relativity, one cannot own the mere idea of a medicine – the distinction between inventions and discoveries doesn't apply since every invention is a mere application of a discovery.3~ Ideas are social products – individuals exist within a society who must provide them with the requisite knowledge and background to create new thought – thus creation of knowledge is a shared enterprise that cannot be owned by an individual, just as how an individual cannot own a building that an entire town built by laying the last brick.4~ If two people came up with the same medical process independently you'd have to give them both IP for their labor which paradoxically excludes both of them from use of the IP – proves granting ownership to ideas is a contradiction.5~ Reject consequentialist justifications for IP's existence – a~ they only prove that it would be beneficial to think that IP exists, but doesn't prove that it actually does – if I was given a billion dollars to believe in Flat Earth theory, that doesn't prove its truth even if it produces good results – b~ it requires calculation of the consequences of actions, but calculation itself is an action that must be calculated as an action which regresses and means it's impossible to use utilContention 3Reject property independently:1~ It is impossible to create a brightline for what one must do to turn an object into property – we think that drawing something on a paper may grant you ownership of the art but drawing the same thing onto a mountain doesn't grant you ownership of the mountain which makes defining ownership impossible and arbitrary.2~ Property rights are unjust since one who has property also has the means to create more property whereas people with less property don't have these means which makes the ability for property acquisition based on arbitrary and random factors which cannot be just.3~ Ownership presumes that there is an agent that owns the property – however, personal identity does not exist.Unger, Peter 1979. I Do Not Exist. Perception and Identity, 235–251. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-04862-5_10 JS Even if personal identity did exist, it would not be stable since throughout time the structures of our mind and body are changed through creation of new memories. Even if a person owned a particular object, the fact that they change into a totally different person in a few moments would render it impossible to say that an individual owns something with permanency.4~ Property falls into a contradiction since by having exclusive ownership over an object you are preventing others from appropriating it which denies them their right to property5~ Panpsychism is true – only it can provide a full account of the world and it's the most parsimonious.Philip Goff, 2017, "The Case For Panpsychism," Philosophy Now, https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism JS The defining feature of consciousness is the ability to cause one's own willing, which makes life unsuitable for appropriation – but since everything, including medicine, is life that means everything is unsuitable for ownership.Underview (Clean)~1~ 1AR theory paradigm – a) we get it since otherwise it would be impossible to check infinite NC abuse b) drop the debater – Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell.~2~ The neg may not read necessary but insufficient burdens a) Strat Skew- You can uplayer with 7 minutes of NIBs I have to beat back before I can access offense which is terrible for a 4 min 1ar, it is impossible for aff to overwhelm the neg because you always have longer times and reactive speeches to overcome any unfairness b) Norms- It would justify infinite neg abuse because neg would just read 7 min of auto-negate arguments which is infinite abuse | 9/29/21 |
SO - AC - KantTournament: uk | Round: 2 | Opponent: strath haven am | Judge: gordon Framework====The meta-ethic is practical reason—==== ====1~ Ethics must be grounded in the fundamental characteristic shared by all moral agents, namely their status as agents, which is to say practical reasoners.==== 2~ Morality must begin from practical reason—it's impossible to deny reason's authority.Velleman (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19) Absent self-justifying moral foundations, inquiry becomes either circular or infinitely regressive which both means creating coherent ethical principles impossible.Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves anymore than 2+24 can be true only for me. The only constraint is noncontradiction. ==== Coercion violates the universal law – thus the standard is respecting freedom. EngstromEngstrom, Stephen (Professor of Ethics at UPitt). "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge." http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/engstrom_vortrag.pdf Now prefer the standard:1~ Culpability – if we didn't regard agents as free, then we can't hold them culpable for immoral actions since there would be no possibility of them doing otherwise and being moral.2~ Argumentation Ethics – Any attempt to justify a violation of rights commits performative contradiction.Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics /AHS PB 3~ Motivation – self-interested individuals are motivated to inevitably tend towards a libertarian state – outweighs since otherwise we can ask "why be moral" and there's no solution ,absent a self-interested reason.Bruno Verbeek, University of Leiden, Summarizes Naveson, Published in Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, Malcolm Murray (ed.). Ashgate, 2007. Pp. 273., https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16519/Verbeek_Murray-Corrections.pdf?sequence=4 /AHS PB 4~ Separateness of persons. If an action is morally good, it must be good for someone. Goodness is a linguistic concept that must be spoken from a particular perspective. People's goods can't be aggregated since there is no God's-eye perspective from which that action would be good. This justifies libertarianism since every person has a right to pursue their own good.5~ Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of rationality – coercion is wrong since it treats others as a mere means to an end.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Offense1~ Intellectual Property is bad – it denies people the right to their own property and shuts down free competition – no turns – the conflation of intellectual property with physical property misunderstands the constitutive role of private property in the first place.Kinsella N. Stephan, 5-25-2011, "How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ JS 2~ One cannot be said to own an idea because that idea came from the collective activity of others before you – trying to restrict others from using something you own is coercion.Hettinger, Edwin C. 1989, "Justifying Intellectual Property." Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2265190. Accessed 18 Aug. 2021. JS 3~ Intellectual property is logically absurd and an illegitimate claim of right.Long, Roderick. 1995. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights" JS http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html~~#4 Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory otherwise there's no way to check infinite abuse. Drop the debater on 1AR theory since the 1AR is too time crunched to win both substance and theory. No 2NR RVI's since you'll just sandbag for 6 minutes on 1AR theory and win rounds while being abusive.2~ Permissibility affirms – a) Decision theory – it's epistemically safer to affirm a permissible action since that would merely be supererogatory, but if you make a mistake in your thinking and don't do an obligatory action then you've done a moral wrong – b) Reciprocity – They have an exclusive layer of the debate in the form of topicality, so we should have permissibility – c) Text – ought is "used to express appropriateness" according to dictionary.com which means that permissibility logically affirmsMethodPut away your Kant indicts – the 1AC is key to critique of status quo structures:1~ Critique cannot be divorced from Kantian thinking. A priori reason is necessary to identify oppressive beliefs – this independently proves that ethics is based on rationalism instead of empiricism.Wood Wood, Allen, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pg. 11-12, 2007. 11/21/17 MB PZ 2~ The problematic views of traditional Kantian philosophy demands not a throwing away of his ideals but instead a rethinking of them in the context of racial domination – that's key to affirm genuine inclusion in line with Afro-modern traditions.Mills 18 Charles W. Mills. "Black Radical Kantianism." Res Philosophica, Vol. 95, No. 1, January 2018, pp. 1–33 https:// doi.org/ 10.11612/ resphil.1622 SJCPJG ROBThe ROB is to determine whether the resolution is a true statement, the ROJ is to communicate that to tab – prefer it:a) Five dictionaries~1~ define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm~2~ as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity.b) ground- truth testing allows for the more ground than any other ROB since it allows for a literal infinite amount of arguments on a range of argumentation style giving the most breadth and depth of topic and phil edc) Isomorphism- ROBs 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 the problem. Truth Testing solves since it's solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn't a close estimate | 9/12/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v2Tournament: uk | Round: 6 | Opponent: westwood wy | Judge: anand rao Framework====The meta-ethic is practical reason—==== ====1~ Ethics must be grounded in the fundamental characteristic shared by all moral agents, namely their status as agents, which is to say practical reasoners.==== 2~ Morality must begin from practical reason—it's impossible to deny reason's authority.Velleman (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19) Absent self-justifying moral foundations, inquiry becomes either circular or infinitely regressive which both means creating coherent ethical principles impossible.Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves anymore than 2+24 can be true only for me. The only constraint is noncontradiction. ==== Coercion violates the universal law – thus the standard is respecting freedom. EngstromEngstrom, Stephen (Professor of Ethics at UPitt). "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge." http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/engstrom_vortrag.pdf Now prefer the standard:1~ Culpability – if we didn't regard agents as free, then we can't hold them culpable for immoral actions since there would be no possibility of them doing otherwise and being moral.2~ Argumentation Ethics – Any attempt to justify a violation of rights commits performative contradiction.Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics /AHS PB 3~ Motivation – self-interested individuals are motivated to inevitably tend towards a libertarian state – outweighs since otherwise we can ask "why be moral" and there's no solution ,absent a self-interested reason.Bruno Verbeek, University of Leiden, Summarizes Naveson, Published in Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, Malcolm Murray (ed.). Ashgate, 2007. Pp. 273., https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16519/Verbeek_Murray-Corrections.pdf?sequence=4 /AHS PB 4~ Separateness of persons. If an action is morally good, it must be good for someone. Goodness is a linguistic concept that must be spoken from a particular perspective. People's goods can't be aggregated since there is no God's-eye perspective from which that action would be good. This justifies libertarianism since every person has a right to pursue their own good.5~ Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of rationality – coercion is wrong since it treats others as a mere means to an end.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Offense1~ Intellectual Property is bad – it denies people the right to their own property and shuts down free competition – no turns – the conflation of intellectual property with physical property misunderstands the constitutive role of private property in the first place.Kinsella N. Stephan, 5-25-2011, "How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ JS 2~ One cannot be said to own an idea because that idea came from the collective activity of others before you – trying to restrict others from using something you own is coercion.Hettinger, Edwin C. 1989, "Justifying Intellectual Property." Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2265190. Accessed 18 Aug. 2021. JS 3~ Intellectual property is logically absurd and an illegitimate claim of right.Long, Roderick. 1995. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights" JS http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html~~#4 Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory otherwise there's no way to check infinite abuse. Drop the debater on 1AR theory since the 1AR is too time crunched to win both substance and theory. No 2NR RVI's since you'll just sandbag for 6 minutes on 1AR theory and win rounds while being abusive.MethodPut away your Kant indicts – a priori reason is necessary to identify oppressive beliefs – this independently proves that ethics is based on rationalism instead of empiricism.Wood Wood, Allen, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pg. 11-12, 2007. 11/21/17 MB PZ Prefer deontic over hedonist theories of ethics:1~ Utilitarianism creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics 2~ Utilitarianism falls into an inevitable logical tautology that renders it incoherent. Hurka:Hurka, Thomas, "Moore's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/moore-moral/. Our framework solves – instead of a single thing like pleasure being the good, we argue that each person has different conceptions of the good that they should have the capacity to engage in so long as it doesn't hinder others.3~ Deciding between two states of affairs under util is impossible – it creates a calculative regress..Bales 71 | 9/12/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v3Tournament: uk | Round: Octas | Opponent: unionville pw | Judge: panel Framework====The meta-ethic is practical reason—==== ====1~ Ethics must be grounded in the fundamental characteristic shared by all moral agents, namely their status as agents, which is to say practical reasoners.==== 2~ Morality must begin from practical reason—it's impossible to deny reason's authority.Velleman (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19) Absent self-justifying moral foundations, inquiry becomes either circular or infinitely regressive which both means creating coherent ethical principles impossible.Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves anymore than 2+24 can be true only for me. The only constraint is noncontradiction. ==== Coercion violates the universal law – thus the standard is respecting freedom. EngstromEngstrom, Stephen (Professor of Ethics at UPitt). "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge." http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/engstrom_vortrag.pdf Now prefer the standard:1~ Culpability – if we didn't regard agents as free, then we can't hold them culpable for immoral actions since there would be no possibility of them doing otherwise and being moral.2~ Argumentation Ethics – Any attempt to justify a violation of rights commits performative contradiction.Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics /AHS PB 3~ Motivation – self-interested individuals are motivated to inevitably tend towards a libertarian state – outweighs since otherwise we can ask "why be moral" and there's no solution ,absent a self-interested reason.Bruno Verbeek, University of Leiden, Summarizes Naveson, Published in Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, Malcolm Murray (ed.). Ashgate, 2007. Pp. 273., https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16519/Verbeek_Murray-Corrections.pdf?sequence=4 /AHS PB 4~ Separateness of persons. If an action is morally good, it must be good for someone. Goodness is a linguistic concept that must be spoken from a particular perspective. People's goods can't be aggregated since there is no God's-eye perspective from which that action would be good. This justifies libertarianism since every person has a right to pursue their own good.5~ Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of rationality – coercion is wrong since it treats others as a mere means to an end.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS OffenseI affirm whole rez – the member nations of the WTO ought to reduce IP protections on medicines – this doesn't defend the state as good, but instead puts a demand on it – saying nazi Germany ought not have done the holocaust is true but doesn't mean we think nazi Germany is good. Now affirm:1~ Intellectual Property is bad – it denies people the right to their own property and shuts down free competition – no turns – the conflation of intellectual property with physical property misunderstands the constitutive role of private property in the first place.Kinsella N. Stephan, 5-25-2011, "How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ JS 2~ One cannot be said to own an idea because that idea came from the collective activity of others before you – trying to restrict others from using something you own is coercion.Hettinger, Edwin C. 1989, "Justifying Intellectual Property." Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2265190. Accessed 18 Aug. 2021. JS 3~ Intellectual property is logically absurd and an illegitimate claim of right.Long, Roderick. 1995. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights" JS http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html~~#4 UnderviewAff gets 1AR theory otherwise there's no way to check infinite abuse. Drop the debater on 1AR theory since the 1AR is too time crunched to win both substance and theory. No 2NR RVI's since you'll just sandbag for 6 minutes on 1AR theory and win rounds while being abusive.ROBThe ROB is to determine whether the resolution is a true statement, the ROJ is to communicate that to tab – prefer it:A~ Five dictionaries~1~ define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm~2~ as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity.B~ ground- truth testing allows for the more ground than any other ROB since it allows for a literal infinite amount of arguments on a range of argumentation style giving the most breadth and depth of topic and phil edC~ Isomorphism- ROBs 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 the problem. Truth Testing solves since it's solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn't a close estimateD~ Critical pedagogy forces the judge into the role of coercer. Rickert,(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal, wbem) An example of the connection between violence and pedagogy is implicit in the notion of being "schooled" as it has been conceptualized by Giroux ~is~ and Peter Mcl.aren. They explain, "Fundamental to the principles that inform critical pedagogy is the conviction that schooling for self- and social empowerment is ethically prior to questions of epistemology or to a mastery oftechnical or social skills that are primarily tied to the logic of the marketplace" (153-54). A presumption here is that it is the teacher who knows (best), and this orientation gives the concept of schooling a particular bite: though it presents itself as oppositional to the state and the dominant forms of pedagogy that serve the state and its capitalist interests, it nevertheless reinscribes an authoritarian model that is congruent with any number of oedipalizing pedagogies that "school" the student in proper behavior. As Diane Davis notes, radical, feminist, and liberatory pedagogies "often camouflage pedagogical violence in their move from one mode of 'normalization' to another" and "function within a disciplinary matrix of power, a covert carceral system, that aims to create useful subjects for particular political agendas" (212). Such oedipalizing pedagogies are less effective in practice than what the claims for them assert; indeed, the attempt to "school" students in the manner called for by Giroux and McLaren is complicitous with the malaise of postmodern cynicism. Students will dutifully go through their liberatory motions, producing the proper assignments, but it remains an open question whether they carry an oppositional politics with them. The "critical distance" supposedly created with liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class. Fairness is a voter that outweighs – a~ it's an intrinsic good – debate is fundamentally a game and some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity, b~ every argument concedes its authority since they presume they'll actually be evaluated unbiasedly.MethodPut away your Kant indicts – a priori reason is necessary to identify oppressive beliefs – this independently proves that ethics is based on rationalism instead of empiricism.Wood Wood, Allen, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pg. 11-12, 2007. 11/21/17 MB PZ Reject evaluation of consequences – it creates a calculative regress.Bales 71 | 9/12/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v4Tournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 2 | Opponent: immac heart ss | Judge: michael harris 1ACFramework====The meta-ethic is practical reason—==== ====1~ Ethics must be grounded in the fundamental characteristic shared by all moral agents, namely their status as agents, which is to say practical reasoners.==== 2~ Morality must begin from practical reason—it's impossible to deny reason's authority.Velleman (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19) Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves anymore than 2+24 can be true only for me. The only constraint is noncontradiction. ==== Coercion violates the universal law – thus the standard is respecting freedom. EngstromEngstrom, Stephen (Professor of Ethics at UPitt). "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge." http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/engstrom_vortrag.pdf Now prefer the standard:1~ Culpability – if we didn't regard agents as free, then we can't hold them culpable for immoral actions since there would be no possibility of them doing otherwise and being moral.2~ Argumentation Ethics – Any attempt to justify a violation of rights commits performative contradiction.Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics /AHS PB 3~ Motivation – self-interested individuals are motivated to inevitably tend towards a libertarian state – outweighs since otherwise we can ask "why be moral" and there's no solution ,absent a self-interested reason.Bruno Verbeek, University of Leiden, Summarizes Naveson, Published in Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, Malcolm Murray (ed.). Ashgate, 2007. Pp. 273., https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16519/Verbeek_Murray-Corrections.pdf?sequence=4 /AHS PB 4~ Separateness of persons. If an action is morally good, it must be good for someone. Goodness is a linguistic concept that must be spoken from a particular perspective. People's goods can't be aggregated since there is no God's-eye perspective from which that action would be good. This justifies libertarianism since every person has a right to pursue their own good.5~ Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of rationality – coercion is wrong since it treats others as a mere means to an end.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Offense1~ Intellectual Property is bad – it denies people the right to their own property and shuts down free competition – no turns – the conflation of intellectual property with physical property misunderstands the constitutive role of private property in the first place.Kinsella N. Stephan, 5-25-2011, "How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ JS 2~ One cannot be said to own an idea because that idea came from the collective activity of others before you – trying to restrict others from using something you own is coercion.Hettinger, Edwin C. 1989, "Justifying Intellectual Property." Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2265190. Accessed 18 Aug. 2021. JS 3~ Intellectual property is logically absurd and an illegitimate claim of right.Long, Roderick. 1995. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights" JS http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html~~#4 Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory otherwise there's no way to check infinite abuse. Drop the debater on 1AR theory since the 1AR is too time crunched to win both substance and theory. No 2NR RVI's since you'll just sandbag for 6 minutes on 1AR theory and win rounds while being abusive.2~ No neg fiat! It's Irreciprocal and IllegitimatePlants 89 ~J. Daniel Plants, Baylor University, 1989, "Counterplans Re-Visited: The Last Sacred Cow?," Punishment Paradigms : Pros And Cons, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Plants1989Punishment.htm~~ AG MethodPut away your Kant indicts – a priori reason is necessary to identify oppressive beliefs – this independently proves that ethics is based on rationalism instead of empiricism.Wood Wood, Allen, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pg. 11-12, 2007. 11/21/17 MB PZ Prefer deontic over hedonist theories of ethics:1~ Utilitarianism creates a moral obligation to oppress people, when their suffering would cause a greater amount of happiness for the majority.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics 2~ Utilitarianism falls into an inevitable logical tautology that renders it incoherent. Hurka:Hurka, Thomas, "Moore's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/moore-moral/. Our framework solves – instead of a single thing like pleasure being the good, we argue that each person has different conceptions of the good that they should have the capacity to engage in so long as it doesn't hinder others.3~ Deciding between two states of affairs under util is impossible – it creates a calculative regress..Bales 71 | 10/9/21 |
SO - AC - UtilTournament: uk | Round: 3 | Opponent: forgot | Judge: michael fain Advantage 1We are in an innovation crisis – new drugs are not being developed in favor of re-purposing old drugs to infinitely extend patent expiration.Feldman 1 Robin Feldman 2-11-2019 "'One-and-done' for new drugs could cut patent thickets and boost generic competition" https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/ (Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson '54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation)SidK + Elmer We control Uniqueness – up to 80 of all new patents are not new drugs but old ones.Feldman 2 Robin Feldman 18, May your drug price be evergreen, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2018, Pages 590–647, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy022 Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson '54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation (Study Notes: Presenting the first comprehensive study of evergreening, this article examines the extent to which evergreening behavior—which can be defined as artificially extending the protection cliff—may contribute to the problem. The author analyses all drugs on the market between 2005 and 2015, combing through 60,000 data points to examine every instance in which a company added a new patent or exclusivity.)sid The only major study confirms our Internal Link – Evergreening decimates competition by resulting in functional monopoliesArnold Ventures 20 9-24-2020 "'Evergreening' Stunts Competition, Costs Consumers and Taxpayers" https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/evergreening-stunts-competition-costs-consumers-and-taxpayers/ (Arnold Ventures is focused on evidence-based giving in a wide range of categories including: criminal justice, education, health care, and public finance)Elmer Pharma spills-over – has cascading global impacts that are necessary for human survival.NAS 8 National Academy of Sciences 12-3-2008 "The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future Summary of a Workshop" Re-cut by Elmer Advantage 2Global health inequality threatens progress in fight vs COVID-19 encouraging vaccine resistant mutationsFink 7-30-21 IP protections are the vital internal link to resolve vaccine deficiencies. Empirics disprove all pro patent argumentsKumar, PhD, 7-12-21 Failure to contain COVID-19 causes extinctionGuy R. McPherson, PhD, 20 ~PhD Range Science, Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona School of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology~, "Will COVID-19 Trigger Extinction of All Life on Earth?" Eart and Envi Scie Res and Rev, Volume 3 Issue 2, 4-8-2020, https://opastonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/will-covid-19-trigger-extinction-of-all-life-on-earth-eesrr-20-.pdf Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin FrameworkEthics must begin a-posteriori:1 – We can't obtain evidence of goodness without desire.Sayre-McCord 01 2 – Indifference – Even if there are apriori moral truths, I can choose to ignore them. Cognition is binding – if I put my hand on a hot stove, I can't turn off my natural aversion to it.The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing.Prefer:1 – Pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 4~ Extinction outweighs –a~ Prerequisite – if we're all dead then no conception of moral value can exist and it procedurally precludes us from acting according to other ethical frameworks so it comes first. | 9/12/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/9/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/23/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/29/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
|