Northern Valley Song Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL OF THEM | 4 | BLAH BLAH BLAH | BLAH BLAH BLAH |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 2 | lhp sv | michael kurian |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 3 | Bronx RP | andrew shaw |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 1 | harker av | luka k |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 4 | monta vista kr | squid |
|
|
| |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 5 | harker aan | benjamin cortez |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 1 | harrison em | sai |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 6 | avik garg | nails |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 4 | isidore ee | kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | Triples | aanya rematch | panel |
|
|
| |
| lexington | 2 | ridge ms | jeong wan choi |
|
|
| |
| lexington | 5 | someone | grant |
|
|
| |
| lexington | 4 | alex kahn | nathan frankel |
|
|
| |
| meadows | 6 | immaculate heart rr | jacob smith |
|
|
| |
| meadows | 4 | immaculate heart ov | davina le |
|
|
| |
| meadows | 1 | loveless rr | diana jeffcoat |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 1 | stanford ay | yoyo lei |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 3 | orange lutheran az | truman le |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | Octas | monta vista rd | nails, barquin, tarun |
|
|
| |
| peninsula | 6 | millard north js | gordon |
|
|
| |
| strake | 2 | heights aw | alison aldridge |
|
|
| |
| strake | 5 | memorial bd | josh st peter |
|
|
| |
| uk | 1 | woodrow wilson te | hugh thompson |
|
|
| |
| uk | 5 | the man the myth the legend graham johnstone | eric teng |
|
|
| |
| uk | 4 | ramsay dj | sai k |
|
|
| |
| valley | 3 | strake vc | keshav |
|
|
| |
| valley | 6 | alex kahn | jp stuckert |
|
|
| |
| valley | Doubles | arnav garg | panel |
|
|
| |
| valley | Octas | karan shah | panel |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| ALL OF THEM | 4 | Opponent: BLAH BLAH BLAH | Judge: BLAH BLAH BLAH THIS IS A ROUND REPORT BOX |
| Harvard | 2 | Opponent: lhp sv | Judge: michael kurian 1ac - moten and harney |
| Harvard | 3 | Opponent: Bronx RP | Judge: andrew shaw 1ac - virtue |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 1 | Opponent: harker av | Judge: luka k 1ac - trade secrets |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 4 | Opponent: monta vista kr | Judge: squid 1ac - covid |
| NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | 5 | Opponent: harker aan | Judge: benjamin cortez 1ac - covid |
| apple valley | 1 | Opponent: harrison em | Judge: sai 1ac - woman's rights |
| apple valley | 6 | Opponent: avik garg | Judge: nails 1ac - ag workers |
| apple valley | 4 | Opponent: isidore ee | Judge: kivimaki 1ac - hauntology |
| apple valley | Triples | Opponent: aanya rematch | Judge: panel 1ac - heg |
| lexington | 2 | Opponent: ridge ms | Judge: jeong wan choi 1ac - communism |
| lexington | 5 | Opponent: someone | Judge: grant 1ac - util |
| lexington | 4 | Opponent: alex kahn | Judge: nathan frankel 1ac - kant |
| meadows | 6 | Opponent: immaculate heart rr | Judge: jacob smith 1ac - malaria |
| meadows | 4 | Opponent: immaculate heart ov | Judge: davina le 1ac - stock |
| meadows | 1 | Opponent: loveless rr | Judge: diana jeffcoat 1ac - structural violence |
| peninsula | 1 | Opponent: stanford ay | Judge: yoyo lei 1ac - queer futurism |
| peninsula | 3 | Opponent: orange lutheran az | Judge: truman le 1ac - util |
| peninsula | Octas | Opponent: monta vista rd | Judge: nails, barquin, tarun 1ac - util |
| peninsula | 6 | Opponent: millard north js | Judge: gordon 1ac - util |
| strake | 2 | Opponent: heights aw | Judge: alison aldridge 1ac - setcol |
| strake | 5 | Opponent: memorial bd | Judge: josh st peter 1ac - ost ambiguity adv |
| uk | 1 | Opponent: woodrow wilson te | Judge: hugh thompson Was a lay round I'll give you the doc but there wasn't really an email chain so I probably won't disclose it |
| uk | 5 | Opponent: the man the myth the legend graham johnstone | Judge: eric teng 1ac - kristeva |
| uk | 4 | Opponent: ramsay dj | Judge: sai k 1ac - svio |
| valley | 3 | Opponent: strake vc | Judge: keshav 1ac - kant |
| valley | 6 | Opponent: alex kahn | Judge: jp stuckert 1ac - contracts new |
| valley | Doubles | Opponent: arnav garg | Judge: panel 1ac - covid |
| valley | Octas | Opponent: karan shah | Judge: panel 1ac - stock |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: ALL OF THEM | Round: 4 | Opponent: BLAH BLAH BLAH | Judge: BLAH BLAH BLAH | 8/29/21 |
G - NC - DeterminismTournament: lexington | Round: 4 | Opponent: alex kahn | Judge: nathan frankel NCI negate. First, knowledge requires certainty. The statement "I know how to solve this math problem but I'm not certain how to solve it" is a contradiction. Two implications:1~ A 1 risk that our epistemic viewpoints are unreliable means you vote neg on skep2~ Presumption negates since it proves there is uncertainty related to the aff, meaning that we can't justifiably believe in it.Now, Determinism is true:1~ Free action and moral responsibility are rendered incoherent since it would require causing one's own actions which falls into regress.Strawson, G. (1994). The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 75(1/2), 5–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4320507 JS 2~ Bivalence – a statement capable of being proved true or false must be either true or false – that means the question of whether a particular action will occur in the future is always answered by either "true" or "false," and proves that everything in the future either happens or doesn't happen by necessity – nothing can change that.3~ Neuroscience proves conscious will is an illusion.Wegner, Daniel M., 2002, The Illusion of Conscious Will, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. JS 4~ Double bind – If every action happens because of previous causes, then determinism is true since a causal chain of actions structures action rather than my will – if every action has no previous cause then actions are basically random and I can't cause my own actions to take place which disproves free will.5~ Belief in free will also increases victim blaming and acceptance of inequality – this accounts for every variable.Genschow, Oliver and Vehlow, Benjamin (2021). Free to blame? Belief in free will is related to victim blaming. Consciousness and Cognition 88:103074. JS Determinism proves that there is no moral obligation to do the resolution –1~ Ought implies can since it would be unjust to expect an agent to take an action when they have no capacity to choose otherwise – that's why we don't expect poor people to donate to charity – if it's impossible for an unjust agent to choose otherwise, then we can't say that they have an obligation to do it so determinism proves moral obligations incoherent.2~ Free will and determinism can't coexist since a will is not truly free if they could not change the choice they willed, which determinism denies – moral responsibility requires free will – that's why we don't mark people who were misguided, deceived, or coerced into taking immoral action as inherently bad people.That negates: the act of assigning unjustness presumes something that is morally right that is violated.Lexico Dictionaries, "UNJUST English Definition and Meaning," https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unjust JS | 1/16/22 |
G - NC - Determinism v2Tournament: peninsula | Round: Octas | Opponent: monta vista rd | Judge: nails, barquin, tarun I negate. First, knowledge requires certainty. The statement "I know how to solve this math problem but I'm not certain how to solve it" is a contradiction. Two implications:1~ A 1 risk that our epistemic viewpoints are unreliable means you vote neg on skep2~ Presumption negates since it proves there is uncertainty related to the aff, meaning that we can't justifiably believe in it.Now, we lack free will –1~ Double bind – proving determinism true or false both means free will is nonexistent.Colin McGinn, Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry. London: Wiley, 1993. P. 80, AHS PB rc 2~ Neuroscience proves conscious will is an illusion.Wegner, Daniel M., 2002, The Illusion of Conscious Will, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. JS 3~ Induction – because something cannot come from nothing according to the laws of thermodynamics, every action must have a cause – that means a causal chain of actions that eventually began before we existed structures our actions rather than our will.Determinism disproves the resolution –1~ Free will and determinism can't coexist since a will is not truly free if they could not change the choice they willed, which determinism denies – moral responsibility requires free will – that's why we don't mark people who were misguided, deceived, or coerced into taking immoral action as inherently bad people.That negates: the act of assigning unjustness presumes something that is morally right that is violated.Lexico Dictionaries, "UNJUST English Definition and Meaning," https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/unjust JS 2~ Even if util's true and morality's possible, determinism negates – util requires we compare between different worlds and see if one produces more pleasure than an alternate action, but insofar as alternate actions don't exist comparison is impossible – thus we can't say the aff world is better than the neg. | 2/18/22 |
G - NC - EmotivismTournament: valley | Round: Octas | Opponent: karan shah | Judge: panel Burden text – The aff burden is to coherently justify the prohibitive action of the resolution. Prefer: a) Predictability – LD is a question of ethics which means this round should be a question of moral prohibitions b) Text – ought is defined as expressing obligation which means ought not necessitates prohibition c) Neg burden choice – The aff should have clarified one in the 1ac, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read one. This would be like reading a new util framework in the 1ar, which kills 1NC strategy since I premised it on your lack of one.Comp worlds doesn't exclude Non-cognitivism is true – ethical assertions are neither true or false –1~ Open Question – Suppose goodness was synonymous with a property like "X". It is impossible to answer to question "is X good" since 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 good in which case non-naturalism is true. The metaethic solves since moral statements aren't making coherent claims about properties in the first place.2~ Disagreement – only non-cognitivism explains disagreement over foundational moral principles since they are not truth-apt and thus a unifying conception of good is impossible – denying our fwk means the argument from disagreement gains force, which entails relativism since considering the agential status of every individual it's more probable that disagreement arises from lack of unified good rather than 99 of people not having epistemic access to facts.The inability to analyze moral statements is best explained by the emotive account of ethics.A. J. Ayer, 1936, "A Critique of Ethics," from Language, Truth and Logic JS Thus the standard is consistency with emotivism. Prefer it:Text – the act of expressing obligation is a function of emotion. Ayer 2A. J. Ayer, 1936, "A Critique of Ethics," from Language, Truth and Logic JS Regress – I can question any moral principle infinitely, which eventually must terminate in a principle that has no justification, or an assertion – thus any universal principle collapses to the assertions of an individual will, which is an emotion or sentiment – the only alternative is no moral principles at all.3~ Appeals to emotivism are best for motivating real world solutions to oppression. Yaouzis,Nicolas Olsson MORALITY AND OPPRESSION, published in The End of Morality: Taking Moral Abolitionism Seriously, December 18, 2018, /AHS PB First, note that although moral error theory entails that there are no moral reasons, it does not entail that there are no other kinds of reasons. For example, Olson (2014) points out that there is a reductive meaning of "reason" that does not entail irreducible normativity. I have a prudential reason for attending the department's political philosophy seminar rather than go out for ice cream because I'm interested in learning more about political philosophy, and the best way to accomplish this is to attend the seminar. Similarly, someone can have a prudential reason to support a policy to pay reparations to the descendants of victims of the transatlantic slave trade if they think that this will further their interests. This will not alleviate Mills's worry. Even if the descendants of the transatlantic slave trade have prudential reasons to support such a policy, it seems (at first glance) unlikely that most members of other groups have prudential reasons to support it. However, I think that there is cause for optimism. After all, humans feel sympathy for each other. We grieve at others' sorrow and rejoice at their pleasure. We also tend to become upset at people who cause suffering and applaud people who make others happy. To use David Hume's words (~1740~ 1985: 436): "When we observe a person in misfortunes, we are affected with pity and love; but the author of their misfortunes becomes the object of our strongest hatred, and is the more detested in proportion to the degree of our compassion." So, when a person hears about, say, the plight of an Afghan refugee soon to be deported, it is natural for the observer to feel affection and pity for the refugee, while at the same time hatred and antipathy toward the persons responsible for the decision to deport the refugee. Affection for the refugee and antipathy for the persons responsible for the decision often tend to give rise to a desire for change. Therefore, an activist can appeal to these desires, rather than to non-existing moral facts, to convince politicians and fellow citizens to not deport Afghan refugees. Now negate:Every emotive judgement is indexed to a particular individual and circumstance, no emotive sentiments can ever be fully universal. This means that the resolution negates since there is no emotion that can be applied to a universal claim that x is y.The aff cannot prove the resolution true since statements like the aff are not truth apt but just expressions which makes them non-binding – thus they haven't met their burden and you negate – this also means non-cognitivism negates independently. | 9/27/21 |
G - NC - Lewisian Modal RealismTournament: lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: someone | Judge: grant First, ontology must be as simple as possible due to Occam's razor – when comparing two equally valid theories of ontology, we ought to try to reduce the amount of ontological categories and create the simplest overall theory – we have no reason to believe in the existence of entities that are explanatory redundant and so we reject them.Second, this means modal realism– that means every possible world are equally real to our own world – think parallel universes. That eliminates the redundant ontological category of a "possibility."Bricker, Lewiss, "David Lewis: On the Plurality of Worlds", 2014, https://blogs.umass.edu/bricker/files/2014/08/Bricker-Lewiss_On_the-Plurality_of_Worlds.pdf JS He continues:MR ~Modal Realism~ appears to provide a basis for using possible worlds to reduce possibilities. Lewis completes the proposed reduction by pairing modal claims with proposed analyses in non-modal terms. Lewis's theory separates modal claims into two kinds. The truth of the first kind, the de re modal claims, turns on the possibilities for particular individuals. The truth, for instance, of 'Bush might have lost the 2000 electoral vote' turns on what's possible for Bush. Lewis relies on counterparts to analyze de re claims. His analysis of the claim at hand is: there is a counterpart of Bush, an inhabitant of some cosmos or other, who lost.12 This claim is no more modal than the claim that there is an opponent of Bush, an inhabitant of some state or other, who lost the vote. Modal claims of the second kind, the de dicto modal claims, do not turn on the possibilities for any particular individual. The truth, for example, of 'there might have been purple penguins' does not turn on how any particular individual might have been, but rather on the possible truth of a general claim to the effect that there are some purple penguins.13 Lewis's analysis of de dicto claims does not appeal 4 to counterparts. In the case at hand, Lewis's analysis is: there is a cosmos which includes some purple penguins.14 This claim seems no more modal than the claim that there is a state whose inhabitants include some wealthy surfers.15 Several implications:1~ The aff doesn't solve but creates a counterpart world where their harms occur. Only agent-centered morality solves.Bricker, Lewiss, "David Lewis: On the Plurality of Worlds", 2014, https://blogs.umass.edu/bricker/files/2014/08/Bricker-Lewiss_On_the-Plurality_of_Worlds.pdf JS 2~ Since there's infinite possibilities with people, there's infinite worlds with people which means that there's an infinite amount of pleasure and pain – subtraction from that is incoherent. | 1/16/22 |
G - NC - TTTournament: apple valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: harrison em | Judge: sai | 11/5/21 |
G - NC - UtilTournament: meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: loveless rr | Judge: diana jeffcoat The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing.Prefer – pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 Util is binding and undeniable – Even if there are other 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.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.b~ Magnitude – extinction causes massive amounts of pain to every person on the planet which outweighs on both magnitude and scope – also turns structural violence because things like nuke war or climate change affects minorities the most through targeting of cities and environmental racism.c~ Future generations and uncertainty proves extinction first.Pummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT | 10/31/21 |
G - Theory - Colt PeacemakerTournament: uk | Round: 5 | Opponent: the man the myth the legend graham johnstone | Judge: eric teng 2Interpretation, if the aff differs from the conventional truth testing they must explicitly specify a comprehensive standard and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:1. Clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and which comes first. Truth testing only includes post fiat offense plus theory.2. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, such as whether or not the aff comes before theory. Truth Testing doesn't take out theory.3. Clarify how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement. Only the flow matters under TT.
| 9/12/21 |
G - Theory - Impact Justified Fwks BadTournament: valley | Round: Octas | Opponent: karan shah | Judge: panel 2A: Interpretation – Debaters must only read normatively justified frameworks that can guide action in every instanceB: Violation – You read an impact justified framework – ~explain~C: Standards— 1. Strat skew – Reading an impact justified framework destroys my strategy: Turn ground – it artificially exclude impacts from a larger framework that would justify your impact being bad which means you can cherry pick any impact that flows one direction. Strat skew controls the internal link to fairness because it's impossible for me to debate absent a coherent accessible strategy to engage.2. Phil ed – Impact justified framework destroy phil ed: Justification – impact justification destroys the requirement to learn concepts like normativity, metaphysics, meta-ethics, and other types of justifications for frameworks since all you need is reasons why one impact is badVoters – Fairness is a voter since debate is a competitive activity that intrinsically requires an equal shot at winning. Education is a voter since it's the reason schools fund debate and its ultimate impact.DD – a) to deter future abuse, b) otherwise they could just kick and go for the positive time tradeoff on theory, c) the round has been skewed so theory is the only fair place to voteCI – a) reasonability requires judge intervention because I don't know where your BS meter is, and b) reasonability creates a race to the bottom since it motivates debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away with them by playing defense on theory.No RVIs – a) It's illogical to vote for you for being fair, rounds without theory would be irresolvable b) It incentivizes you to bait theory and win off a scripted CI. | 9/27/21 |
G - Theory - New Affs BadTournament: peninsula | Round: 1 | Opponent: stanford ay | Judge: yoyo lei 1Interpretation—the aff must disclose at a minimum their advocacy text 30 minutes before the round.Violation—they didn't – screenshots proveStandard is prep and clash—two internal links—a) neg prep—5 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics—30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative b) aff quality—plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn't inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, the case should lose—this will answer the 1ar's claim about innovation—with 30 minutes of prep, there's still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can't check against the broader literature.Fairness is a voter – speech times, speaker positions, wins and losses, and the fact that they've asked you to vote for them prove debate is a game structured around competition. Procedural equity is necessary for the sustainability and value of that game otherwise no one will play – any interpretation that upsets it should lose. Independently, its assessment is inevitable because it's the logical evaluative structure that undergirds their arguments.Drop the debater—Competing interpretations—No RVIs— | 1/23/22 |
JF - NC - Property RightsTournament: strake | Round: 2 | Opponent: heights aw | Judge: alison aldridge NC – Property RightsI negate and value freedom.There exists no universal good –1~ Open Question argument – it's impossible to equate any property X with the good since if it was, the coherent question of "is X good" would be the meaningless tautology "is good good." Means no universal good exists.2~ Regress – it's always possible to challenge conceptions of goodness by merely asking "why?" infinitely3~ Widespread moral disagreement in ethics is best explained by relativism since it's improbable that the majority of agent who have equal access to logical reasoning are incorrect.Thus, ethical theories cannot appeal to objective values but instead to internal goods that each creates. Mutual restraint on property is internally motivating as it is a prerequisite to successful action itself.Narveson, Jan (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):101-134. JS Impacts:1~ Liberal conceptions of property are inevitable – since resources are scarce and often incompatible among different people, the only way to effectively use resources is to distribute particular objects to particular individuals through a system of property.2~ The aff's taking of action presupposes non-interference else no action could happen, which concedes the moral authority of freedom.Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarianism, or a system of respecting the property rights and freedom of others. Prefer this:1~ Performativity – discourse presupposes self-ownership since its intrinsic purpose is to compel belief through persuasion rather than coercion– this means contestations of my framework in debate presuppose it.2~ The seperateness of persons justifies a right to self-ownership and property that cannot be aggregated with the interests of others.Narveson, Jan (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):101-134. JS 3~ Viewing others as ends in themselves is a prerequisite for moral value – coercion treats others as a mere means for one's own purposes.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Impact Calc—1~ The only moral wrongs are those that intentionally infringe upon their rights, not those that make property less available for others. For example, I don't wrong you by buying the last carton of milk at the grocery store when you want milk, but it's mere happening2~ Moral responsibility is only possible via the standard – 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.I defend the squo – now negate:Liberal conception of property rights are awesome and egalitarian – space exploration only changes the location and not the nature of property claims, which makes private appropriation just.Baca, Kurt Anderson Property Rights in Outer Space, 58 J. Air L. and Com. 1041 (1993) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol58/iss4/4 JS There is no such thing as unjust initial acquisition – an injustice requires one whose right has been violated, which cannot be the case if a resource is unclaimed.Feser, E. (2005). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION. Social Philosophy and Policy, 22(1), 56–80. doi:10.1017/s0265052505041038 JS That negates – space is not under ownership by any state now, which proves that acquisition cannot be unjust | 12/18/21 |
JF - NC - Property Rights v2Tournament: lexington | Round: 2 | Opponent: ridge ms | Judge: jeong wan choi NCI negate.First, we own ourselves – anything else justifies morally repugnant actions like slavery since otherwise other people can own us.Second, self-ownership implies a right to the products of your labor inscribed in property rights.John Locke (Philosopher; MA, Oxford, 1658). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill: London. 1689. JDN. https://press pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html recut JS and bracketed for gender language Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarianism, or a system of respecting the property rights and freedom of others. Prefer this:1~ Performativity – discourse presupposes self-ownership since its intrinsic purpose is to compel belief through persuasion rather than coercion– this means contestations of my framework in debate presuppose it.2~ The seperateness of persons justifies a right to self-ownership and property that cannot be aggregated with the interests of others.Narveson, Jan (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):101-134. JS 3~ Viewing others as ends in themselves is a prerequisite for moral value – coercion treats others as a mere means for one's own purposes.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Impact Calc—1~ The only moral wrongs are those that intentionally infringe upon their rights, not those that make property less available for others. For example, I don't wrong you by buying the last carton of milk at the grocery store when you want milk, but it's mere happening2~ Moral responsibility is only possible via the standard – 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.I defend the squo – now negate:Liberal conception of property rights are egalitarian and good – space exploration only changes the location and not the nature of property claims, which makes private appropriation just.Baca, Kurt Anderson Property Rights in Outer Space, 58 J. Air L. and Com. 1041 (1993) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol58/iss4/4 JS There is no such thing as unjust initial acquisition – an injustice requires one whose right has been violated, which cannot be the case if a resource is unclaimed.Feser, E. (2005). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION. Social Philosophy and Policy, 22(1), 56–80. doi:10.1017/s0265052505041038 JS That negates – space is not under ownership by any state now, which proves that acquisition cannot be unjust | 1/15/22 |
JF - NC - Property Rights v3Tournament: lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: someone | Judge: grant 1I negate and value justice.There exists no universal good –1~ Open Question argument – it's impossible to equate any property X with the good since if it was, the coherent question of "is X good" would be the meaningless tautology "is good good." Means no universal good exists.2~ Regress – it's always possible to challenge conceptions of goodness by merely asking "why?" infinitely3~ Widespread moral disagreement in ethics is best explained by relativism since it's improbable that the majority of agent who have equal access to logical reasoning are incorrect.Thus, ethical theories cannot appeal to objective values but instead to internal goods that each creates. Mutual restraint on property is internally motivating as it is a prerequisite to successful action itself.Narveson, Jan (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):101-134. JS Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarianism, or the protection of property rights and liberties. Prefer it – the seperateness of persons justifies a right to self-ownership and property that cannot be aggregated with the interests of others.Narveson, Jan (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):101-134. JS I defend the squo – now negate:Liberal conception of property rights are awesome – space exploration only changes the location and not the nature of property claims, which makes private appropriation just.Baca, Kurt Anderson Property Rights in Outer Space, 58 J. Air L. and Com. 1041 (1993) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol58/iss4/4 JS There is no such thing as unjust initial acquisition – an injustice requires one whose right has been violated, which cannot be the case if a resource is unclaimed.Feser, E. (2005). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION. Social Philosophy and Policy, 22(1), 56–80. doi:10.1017/s0265052505041038 JS That negates – space is not under ownership by any state now, which proves that acquisition cannot be unjust | 1/16/22 |
JF - Topicality - AppropriationTournament: peninsula | Round: Octas | Opponent: monta vista rd | Judge: nails, barquin, tarun A topical affirmative must prohibit appropriation of areas of outer space.They violate—they only regulate resources from space.1. Legal precision—their plan misinterprets the OST. Taking things from space is not appropriation "of outer space"Baruah and Paliwal 15 2. Ground—their interp lets in tiny trivial affs, like banning auctions of moon rocks, or nationalizing meteorites because those came from space. Those evade the core topic question of what legal regime should exist in space.Vote neg—T is a question of competing models so it doesn't matter if their plan seems fair in isolation. You should use competing interps to avoid judge intervention. | 2/18/22 |
JF - Topicality - Must Defend PolicyTournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Bronx RP | Judge: andrew shaw The affirmative must prove the resolution – it's a basic aff burden – the text of the resolution is the only stable basis for neg prep, which is key to us having the ability to engage in the first place.We'll prove their appeal to the resolution as a "moral principle" doesn't cut it –1—-Resolved indicates policyParcher 1 ~Jeff; former debate coach at Georgetown; Feb 26, 2001; https://web.archive.org/web/20020929065555/http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html~~ brett 2—-Unjust means related to law.Black's Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett | 2/20/22 |
ND - NC - KantTournament: apple valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: harrison em | Judge: sai Morality must be derived a priori:1~ Naturalistic Fallacy – experience merely perceives how the world is, which cannot correlate to how the world ought to be due to the is-ought fallacy.2~ Uncertainty – inability to know others' experience due to a limited perception makes empiricism unreliable for universal ethics.3~ Verification – The logic of evaluating consequences is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform but we could only reach that conclusion through an observation of past events.Ethics must answer the problem of infinite regress since we could question moral principles forever and avoid following morality. Only reason solves – asking why reason is important concedes its authority as we're asking a reason for using our reason.Moral law must be both necessary and universal – only universal law can be constitutive of agency because it applies to all agents in all instances – other maxims cannot guide action in every situation. Willing coercion is a contradiction in conception because you extend your own freedom while simultaneously undermining your ability to act in the first place.Thus, the standard is respecting freedom. Prefer it:1~ Performativity – Argumentation presupposes one's own freedom to act – if I violated your freedom, you wouldn't be able to debate – this means contestations of my framework prove it true2~ 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.3~ Other Frameworks Collapse – viewing others as ends in themselves is a prerequisite for moral value.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Now negate:1~ The inherent ideology of the strike demands a right to a job they never perform – this creates contradictions and requires coercion in order to be successful.Locke, Don. ~NOT john locke~ "The Right to Strike." Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series, vol. 18, 1984, pp. 173–202., doi:10.1017/S0957042X00003163 JS 2~ No turns – strikes may have good justifications such as hindering hindrances but this doesn't prove that a right exists.Locke, Don. ~NOT john locke~ "The Right to Strike." Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series, vol. 18, 1984, pp. 173–202., doi:10.1017/S0957042X00003163 JS | 11/5/21 |
ND - NC - LavinTournament: apple valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: avik garg | Judge: nails 1Permissibility negates – ought is a moral obligation and permissibility proves a lack of obligation. Permissibility is always valid neg ground on text – ought is in the resolution so denying ought statements is core neg ground.Presumption negates – a~ We assume statements to be false until proven true. That is why we don't believe in alternate realities or conspiracy theories – b~ proving a statement requires absolute certainty – statements like "I know it's raining but I'm not sure it's raining" are incoherent.Vote neg on the error constraint – normative prescriptions require the possibility of doing otherwise else that action would lack moral significance.Lavin, Douglas. "Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error." Ethics, vol. 114, no. 3, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, pp. 424–57, https://doi.org/10.1086/381695. JS bracketed for gender The concept of a "just government" tautologically presupposes a government that acts in a just manner – if a just government were to commit unjust actions, then they would no longer be a just government which means there is no possibility of them doing otherwise – thus under the error constraint, a just government cannot be said to have any moral obligations. | 11/6/21 |
ND - Topicality - ATournament: apple valley | Round: Triples | Opponent: aanya rematch | Judge: panel An indefinite article like the word “a” is a universal quantifier if the main verb applies directly to it | 11/8/21 |
ND - Topicality - NebelTournament: apple valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: harrison em | Judge: sai A~ Interp - the aff can't defend a subset of workers that have an unconditional right to strike recognized by the government.Leslie 16 Leslie, Sarah-Jane ~Sarah-Jane Leslie (Ph.D., Princeton, 2007) is the dean of the Graduate School and Class of 1943 Professor of Philosophy. She has previously served as the vice dean for faculty development in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, director of the Program in Linguistics, and founding director of the Program in Cognitive Science at Princeton University. She is also affiliated faculty in the Department of Psychology, the University Center for Human Values, the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, and the Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy~, 4-24-2016, "Generic Generalizations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ SM It applies to "workers" – 1~ upward entailment test – "governments ought to recognize the right of workers to strike" doesn't entail that governments ought to recognize the right of everybody to strike since it doesn't make sense for unemployed people to strike, 2~ adverb test – adding "usually" to the res doesn't change the meaning because "unconditionally" means no matter whatB~ Violation –C~ Vote neg—1~ Semantics outweigh —A~ Topicality is a constitutive rule of the activity and a basic aff burden, they agreed to debate the topic when they came to the tournamentB~ It's the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there's no way to use ground if debaters aren't prepared to defend it.2~ Limits: You can spec in any sector like climate, tech, manufacturing, healthcare almost every sector has experienced strikes. There's no universal DA since if you spec a hyper specific sector it won't have any impact on the economy. That explodes neg prep burdens and kills engagement – even if generics solve, it's a horrible model that leads to the same stale debates.D~ Paradigm Issues –1~ T is DTD – their abusive advocacy skewed the debate from the start2~ Comes before 1AR theory — A~ If we had to be abusive it's because it was impossible to engage their aff B~ T outweighs on scope because their abuse affected every speech that came after the 1AC C~ Topic norms outweigh on urgency – we only have a few months to set them3~ Use competing interps on T – A~ topicality is a yes/no question, you can't be reasonably topical B~ reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation4~ No RVIs – A~ Forcing the 1NC to go all in on the shell kills substance education and neg strat B~ discourages checking real abuse C~ Encourages baiting – outweighs because if the shell is frivolous, they can beat it quickly | 11/5/21 |
SO - DA - Climate PatentsTournament: meadows | Round: 4 | Opponent: immaculate heart ov | Judge: davina le Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but IP waivers sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid Private sector innovation is key to solve climate change – short term politicking and priority shifts means government can't solve alone.Henry 17, Simon. "Climate Change Cannot Be Solved by Governments Alone. How Can the Private Sector Help?" World Economic Forum, 21 Nov. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/governments-alone-cannot-halt-climate-change-what-can-private-sector-do/. Programme Director, International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) sid Warming causes ExtinctionKareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer | 10/31/21 |
SO - DA - InnovationTournament: meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: loveless rr | Judge: diana jeffcoat Uniqueness: Drug innovation is high now due to COVID, but intellectual property patents are key to incentivize it.Economist. 5-23-2020, "Drug innovation is back in fashion," Economist, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/23/drug-innovation-is-back-in-fashion Link – IP is key – otherwise costs, risks, and time actively impede research – even limited reductions trigger the link.Jaci McDole and Stephen Ezell 4-29-2021, "Ten Ways IP Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain the World Through the Pandemic," No Publication, https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten-ways-ip-has-enabled-innovations-have-helped-sustain-world-through Pharma Innovation prevents Extinction – checks new diseases.Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) 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 | 10/31/21 |
SO - K - CapitalismTournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 4 | Opponent: monta vista kr | Judge: squid Capitalism is a system engendering massive violence and inevitable extinction – the foundational task is to find a way out – the Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best organizational tactics.Badiou '18 TRIPS waivers is a neoliberal ploy to both legitimize the WTO as a governing apparatus while covertly authorizing economic retaliation against nations who invoke it.Ferrer '19 Hegemony is only made possible through economic imperialism – collapsing production makes decline inevitable, but the aff's cling to primacy engenders increasingly desperate interventions to sustain it.Paupp '9 Vote neg to join the party – dual power organizing is the only path to revolutionary change.Escalante '18 Medicine can and must be revolutionary – voting negative aligns with a view of healthcare militantly opposed to capitalist power accumulation in favor of social views of health and broad coalitions among health workers and patients.Yamada et al '20 | 10/9/21 |
SO - K - Capitalism v2Tournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 5 | Opponent: harker aan | Judge: benjamin cortez Capitalism is a system engendering massive violence and inevitable extinction – the foundational task is to find a way out – the Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best organizational tactics.Badiou '18 TRIPS waivers is a neoliberal ploy to both legitimize the WTO as a governing apparatus while covertly authorizing economic retaliation against nations who invoke it.Ferrer '19 The aff's response to Covid-19 papers over the logics of capital that made it inevitable while simultaneously granting the US moral ammunition to continue it's economic-imperial war against China and the global south.Foster and Suwandi '20 Vote neg to join the party – dual power organizing is the only path to revolutionary change.Escalante '18 Medicine can and must be revolutionary – voting negative aligns with a view of healthcare militantly opposed to capitalist power accumulation in favor of social views of health and broad coalitions among health workers and patients.Yamada et al '20 | 10/9/21 |
SO - NC - ContractsTournament: valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: strake vc | Judge: keshav NC (1:35)The meta-ethic is internalism – a priori moral facts don't exist, but instead ethical claims must be made with reference to individual desires.1~ Bindingness – ethics must answer the question of "why should I be moral" else there is no reason to be a moral person – the only solution is reference to self-interest since it creates motivating reasons to be ethical.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 itThus, rather than individuals acting on objective moral principles, they merely act based on self-interest. Only an account of mutual self-restraint where each agent recognizes the benefit of restraining each other's right can create a coherent ethical theory out of egoism.David Gauthier, "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the standard is consistency with mutual self-restraint. Impact calc – the only moral principles that matter are those that rational and self-interested agents would choose in order to mutually restrain themselves.Negate:1~ Intellectual Property creates a prisoner's dilemma game that justifies its protection from the perspective of a self-interested agent.Moore, Adam and Himma, Ken "Intellectual Property", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/intellectual-property/. JS 2~ Companies have made contracts and agreements with governments mandating that their medicines be patented – the aff is a reduction in this mutual agreement and thus violates contracts – creating a contract to break a contract is immoral since it would mean people can't be assured that the contracts they set will be respected, which leads to non-compliance. | 9/25/21 |
SO - NC - Contracts v2Tournament: valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: arnav garg | Judge: panel 1The meta-ethic is internalism – a priori moral facts don't exist, but instead ethical claims must be made with reference to individual desires.1~ 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.2~ 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.3~ 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 it4~ 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.Thus, rather than individuals acting on objective moral principles, they merely act based on self-interest. Only an account of mutual self-restraint where each agent recognizes the benefit of restraining each other's right can create a coherent ethical theory out of egoism.David Gauthier, "Why Contractarianism?," from Peter Vallentyne, ed., Contractarianism and Rational Choice JS Thus, the standard is consistency with mutual self-restraint. Impact calc – the only moral principles that matter are those that rational and self-interested agents would choose in order to mutually restrain themselves.Negate:1~ Intellectual Property creates a prisoner's dilemma game that justifies its protection from the perspective of a self-interested agent.Moore, Adam and Himma, Ken "Intellectual Property", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/intellectual-property/. JS 2~ Companies have made contracts and agreements with governments mandating that their medicines be patented – the aff is a reduction in this mutual agreement and thus violates contracts – creating a contract to break a contract is immoral since it would mean people can't be assured that the contracts they set will be respected, which leads to non-compliance. | 9/27/21 |
SO - NC - KantTournament: uk | Round: 4 | Opponent: ramsay dj | Judge: sai k NCMorality must be derived a priori:1~ Naturalistic Fallacy – experience merely perceives how the world is, which cannot correlate to how the world ought to be due to the is-ought fallacy.2~ Uncertainty – inability to know others' experience due to a limited perception makes empiricism unreliable for universal ethics.3~ Verification – The logic of evaluating consequences is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform but we could only reach that conclusion through an observation of past events.Ethics must answer the problem of infinite regress since we could question moral principles forever and avoid following morality. Only reason solves – asking why reason is important concedes its authority as we're asking a reason for using our reason.Moral law must be both necessary and universal – only universal law can be constitutive of agency because it applies to all agents in all instances – other maxims cannot guide action in every situation. Willing coercion is a contradiction in conception because you extend your own freedom while simultaneously undermining your ability to act in the first place.
Thus, the standard is respecting freedom. Prefer it:1~ Performativity – Argumentation presupposes one's own freedom to act – if I violated your freedom, you wouldn't be able to debate – this means contestations of my framework prove it true2~ 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.3~ Other Frameworks Collapse – viewing others as ends in themselves is a prerequisite for moral value.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Impact calc – the standard is deontological – you cannot violate one person's freedom for the overall good, that's consequentialist and is indicted by your own Santos card.I defend the squo. Now negate:1~ Freedom requires that each person own themselves in order to be able to actualize such free will. Owning oneself entails a right to all products of your body, which includes intellectual property.Attas D. (2008) Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property. In: Gosseries A., Marciano A., Strowel A. (eds) Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-0-230-58239-2_2 JS 2~ Weak IP protections are a form of institutional free-riding which is theft – fact that IP is non-rival doesn't apply.Gmeiner, Robert. (2021). International free riding on institutions. Economic Affairs. 41. 123-140. 10.1111/ecaf.12452. JS Theft is non-universalizable – if everyone could steal whatever private property they wanted, the property is no longer the owner's and thus becomes public, creating a contradiction.3~ Taking away intellectual property is a contradiction in conception, since if every agent was able to take the intellectual property no one would make IP since there's no incentive to so there'd be no IP to steal. | 9/13/21 |
SO - NC - Kant v2Tournament: uk | Round: 5 | Opponent: the man the myth the legend graham johnstone | Judge: eric teng 1The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution –
2. Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.3. 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) 4. Only the exact text of the resolution provides a mutually accessible stasis point for debaters coming into round. Anything else is entirely unpredictable and infinitely regressive since there is no brightline for how much we should care about the resolutionI negate: Normativity is the end goal of ethics since absent being able to guide action, there is no reason to do what is right, and philosophy collapses into skepticism. However agents can always "Why should I do this" to any ethical demand like paying taxes or pursuing pleasure. Only practical reason, or the ability to set and pursue ends, answers the problem of regress since asking "why do I reason" demands a reason for reason, by setting and pursuing the end of asking the question.All ends that we set and pursue must pass the test of universizability.– a) absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, making ethics useless b) a priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience and c) any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others.It's impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedom. Constraints are necessary to retain the value of freedom which implies that one cannot hinder the freedom of others. Thus, the countermethod and standard is to embrace a Kantian system of equal and outer freedom.Prefer the standard on a pre-fiat level—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Offense –Taking away intellectual property is a contradiction in conception, since if every agent was able to take the intellectual property then a~ it would no longer be property and thus would not exist making the initial act incoherent and b~ no one would make IP since there's no incentive to so there'd be no IP to steal. Your critiques of intellectual property link into this.they don't defend a policy – that's non topicalResolved indicates policyMerriam Webster "Definition of RESOLVE," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve JS Nation refers to political structures.Collins Dictionary, "Nation definition and meaning," No Publication, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nation JS | 9/12/21 |
SO - NC - Kant v3Tournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 1 | Opponent: harker av | Judge: luka k Permissibility and presumption negate—the aff has the burden of proof to show the normative claim of the resolution is true, so the neg gets anything that denies that.Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of humanity—that means treating others as ends in themselves. Korsgaard:Christine Korsgaard, "Two Distinctions in Goodness" Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, RE Impacts:All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will which means all other frameworks devolve to skepthis requires that maxims be universal: to make an exception for yourself is to value your own humanity above the humanity of others and thus treat them as means.Now negate:1~ Self ownership entails a right to all products of your body and mind, which includes intellectual property.Attas D. (2008) Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property. In: Gosseries A., Marciano A., Strowel A. (eds) Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-0-230-58239-2_2 JS 2~ Taking away intellectual property is a contradiction in conception, since if every agent was able to take the intellectual property then a~ it would no longer be property and thus would not exist making the initial act incoherent and b~ no one would make IP since there's no incentive to so there'd be no IP to steal. | 10/8/21 |
SO - NC - Kant v4Tournament: meadows | Round: 6 | Opponent: immaculate heart rr | Judge: jacob smith NCMorality 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. ==== That entails that freedom is an intrinsic good – if we universally willed coercion then I would be extending my freedom to coerce others while simultaneously endorsing that other people violate my freedom, a contradiction. Thus the standard is respecting freedom. 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~ Other Frameworks Collapse – viewing others as ends in themselves is a prerequisite for moral value.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS I contend that taking away IP violates the categorical imperative:1~ Self ownership entails a right to all products of your body and mind, which includes intellectual property.Attas D. (2008) Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property. In: Gosseries A., Marciano A., Strowel A. (eds) Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-0-230-58239-2_2 JS 2~ When one labors to create a product, using the product without their consent uses them as a mere means to an end since you're using their labor for your own benefit – any piece of IP, especially medicines, requires labor to produce making it property.3~ Taking away intellectual property is a contradiction in conception, since if every agent was able to take the intellectual property then no one would make IP since there's no incentive to so there'd be no IP to steal. | 10/31/21 |
SO - Topicality - NebelTournament: valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: arnav garg | Judge: panel 2Interpretation: the affirmative may not specify a particular state in the WTO that ought to reduce intellectual property rights for medicines.Nebel 19 ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the- standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO_avWCNzi14 This applies to the resolution – proving "Korea ought to reduce IP rights" doesn't entail that "the member states of the WTO ought to reduce IP rights" so it's a generic bare plual incapable of being proven through specific instances.Violation:Standards:Semantics is a voting issue – prefer the topicality rule – if we prove that being topical's good and that the resolution means x, then logically this means that following x is good, which means any justification for being topical is offense – the resolution's good – key to set a limited stasis point for clash and allows for predictable neg ground. They'll say they're close enough, but there's no brightline for that which justifies straying from the rez always which decks neg contestation.Limits – there's 159 countries in the WTO and a limitless number of different medicines like opioids, vaccines, inhalers, insulin, and more which explodes limits – overspecific affs decks engagement since it allows them to moot core neg generics and the neg can't prep every single permutation – TVA solves – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez plan – we don't prevent new frameworks, advantages, or mechanisms.Fairness is a voter—the judge must vote for the better debater which is impossible if the round is skewed.Drop the debater since drop the arg is severance – restarts the debate so the aff gets 7-6 time skew and too late for new neg offense.Use competing interps—~a~ leads to a race to the top where we find the best norms ~b~ reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention ~c~ reasonability collapses—you use offense/defense on the paradigm debate.No RVIs—~a~ logic – you don't win for being fair, ~b~ means you bait theory and go for the RVI | 9/27/21 |
SO - Topicality - Nebel v2Tournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 1 | Opponent: harker av | Judge: luka k Interpretation: the aff may not defend that member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for a medicine or subset of medicines.Nebel 19 ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the- standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO_avWCNzi14 This applies to the resolution – proving "Korea ought to reduce IP rights" doesn't entail that "the member states of the WTO ought to reduce IP rights" so it's a generic bare plual incapable of being proven through specific instances.Violation: They spec the EUVote neg for limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from Covid vaccines to HIV drugs to Insulin— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications — that explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain medicines which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec medicines.TVA solves – you could've read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it's the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 10/8/21 |
SO - Topicality - PluralTournament: meadows | Round: 6 | Opponent: immaculate heart rr | Judge: jacob smith TInterpretation:The aff must defend reducing IP protections for more than 1 medicineHurbles, 17 The plural means different kinds of medicinesWordHippo B. Violation – the aff specifies only one type of medicine, or anti-malarial drugs.C. Reasons to prefer1. The affirmative interpretation is unreasonable - it creates a race to the bottom of smallest possible changes and obscure singular medicines to dodge links. Plural solves since there isn't unified solvency advocates for random combinations of medicines so it forces debates to groups of medicines that are easier to link disads into.2. Precision is good – T is about the model of debate that you endorse – their model of debate lets them arbitrarily jettison words from the resolution and shift out of neg prep which is on-net worse for debateD. Topicality is a voting issue for predictable limits- it tells the negative what they do and do not have to prepare for. It should be evaluated through competing interpretations – reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom based on questionable argumentation and you can't be reasonably topical.No RVIs — forcing the 1NC to go all in kills substance education and discourages checking abuse | 10/31/21 |
SO - Topicality - ReduceTournament: NANO NAGLE CLASSIC | Round: 1 | Opponent: harker av | Judge: luka k Reduce means permanent reduction – it's distinct from "waive" or "suspend."Reynolds 59 (Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Violation – the plan waives intellectual property protections in certain instances – there are no fewer patents on the books post-aff, just changes when they get enforced.Vote neg for limits and neg ground – re-instatement or waiving under any infinite number of conditions doubles aff ground – every plan becomes either temporary or permanent – you cherry-pick the best criteria and I must prep every aff while they avoid core topic discussions like reduction-based DAs which decks generics like Pharma Innovation and Bio-Tech.Independently, Precision is a voter – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. | 10/8/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/20/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/8/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
11/5/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
11/8/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/31/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/31/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
10/31/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
1/23/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
2/18/22 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/13/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/27/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
| |
9/27/21 | jamessong175@gmailcom |
|