Olympia Ownby Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00 - Contact Information | Finals | You | PLEASE READ THIS |
|
| ||
| 1ST AND 2ND YEAR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AT WOODWARD ACADEMY | 2 | You | Idk |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 1 | Lexington AW | Gomez, Antonio |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 6 | Durham ZG | Ham, Callie |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 3 | Durham AA | He, Anwen |
|
|
| |
| FFL Varsity States | 1 | Our Lady of Lo Gabriella Puig | Ciocca, Daniel |
|
|
| |
| FFL Varsity States | 4 | Jesuit High Maxwell Harden | Kunkel, Dyaeli |
|
|
| |
| FFL Varsity States | 5 | American Heritage Mary Abi Karam | Hernandez, Javier |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | West Des Moines Valley RT | Chen, Vanessa |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | San Mateo YR | Choi, Jeong-Wan |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 6 | Scarsdale BS | Li, Evan |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Syosset LG | Nelson, Arianna |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Millburn ST | St Peter, Joshua |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Randolph CC | Riggs, Tara |
|
|
| |
| The USFG Classic | Quarters | You | Me |
|
| ||
| The USFG Classic | Semis | You | Me |
|
| ||
| The USFG Classic | Finals | You | Me |
|
| ||
| The USFG Classic | 9 | You | Me |
|
| ||
| The USFG Classic | Triples | You | Me |
|
| ||
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 3 | Acton-Boxborough AM | Arshita Sandhiparthi |
|
|
| |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 1 | Syosset BL | Amulya Natchakuri |
|
|
| |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 5 | Village RB | Fees, Bennett |
|
|
| |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Memorial BD | Wyatt Hatfield, Steven Scopa, Dave McGinnis |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 1ST AND 2ND YEAR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AT WOODWARD ACADEMY | 2 | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk Check cites |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Lexington AW | Judge: Gomez, Antonio 1AC - Innovation Adv Biopiracy Adv Util |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: Durham ZG | Judge: Ham, Callie 1AC - Evergreening |
| Duke Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Durham AA | Judge: He, Anwen 1AC - Trad (MSV Evergreening Vaccines) |
| FFL Varsity States | 1 | Opponent: Our Lady of Lo Gabriella Puig | Judge: Ciocca, Daniel 1AC - Lay v1 |
| FFL Varsity States | 4 | Opponent: Jesuit High Maxwell Harden | Judge: Kunkel, Dyaeli 1AC - Lay v2 |
| FFL Varsity States | 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Mary Abi Karam | Judge: Hernandez, Javier 1AC - Lay v3 |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 1 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley RT | Judge: Chen, Vanessa 1AC - Space Debris v1 OS Shell |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan 1AC - Korsgaard AFC TT |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Li, Evan 1AC - Korsgaard v2 |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Nelson, Arianna 1AC - China Adv |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: St Peter, Joshua 1AC - China v2 |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Opponent: Randolph CC | Judge: Riggs, Tara 1AC - China v3 |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Arshita Sandhiparthi 1AC - Innovation Adv Biopiracy Adv |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Syosset BL | Judge: Amulya Natchakuri 1AC - Stock |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Village RB | Judge: Fees, Bennett 1AC - Evergreening v4 |
| Yale Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield, Steven Scopa, Dave McGinnis 1AC - Stock |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
00 - NOTE FOR WOODWARD ROUNDS 1, 2, and 3 PLEASE READTournament: 1ST AND 2ND YEAR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AT WOODWARD ACADEMY | Round: 2 | Opponent: You | Judge: Idk | 3/19/22 |
00-Accessibility FormattingTournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Creds to Lakeville Logan Stenzel for these detailed instructions. | 10/1/21 |
00-Contact InfoTournament: 00 - Contact Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: PLEASE READ THIS I always try to be available before rounds begin, discord or text is usually your best bet for contact. Email: bryce.q.ownby@gmail.com Please let me know preferred gender pronouns, triggers, and accessibility concerns BEFORE the round begins so I can adapt. | 1/14/22 |
00-Content WarningsTournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 7/25/21 |
00-DisclosureTournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 9/17/21 |
00-NavigationTournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 9/3/21 |
1 - AFCTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan Interpretation: The negative must concede to the affirmative's framework if the standard is consistency with universalizable ethics.B. Violation: It's pre-emptiveC. Standards:1. Time skew – Shifting the burden structure in the 1N nullifies 6 minutes of the AC which creates a 7-13 skew. It's impossible to recover because neg speeches are on balance longer than the next aff speech. Infinite abuse since they'll just spread me out and blow up whatever im forced to drop.2. Prep Skew – I can't cut offense under their framework in 4 minutes of prep, whereas they can engage since the aff is disclosed 30 minutes before the round and you have access to unique positions like T, NIBs, and CPs. | 1/15/22 |
1 - Comic Sans ShellTournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield, Steven Scopa, Dave McGinnis To pre-empt the 1AR - the ability to change the font doesn’t solve – it’s ableist to expect them to do something for your aesthetic preference. | 12/3/21 |
1 - Comparative WorldsTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: St Peter, Joshua | 12/4/21 |
1 - Multiple Shells BadTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Li, Evan 1ARA. Interpretation: Debaters must only read ONE theory or T shell that is independently sufficient to win them the roundB. Violation: They read multiple.The standard is norming – a) we can't accurately test the validity of norms cuz I'm spread too thin, and b) more less means less true means – their model incentivizes spamming no-risk shells and collapsing to whatever we inevitably undercover.Norming is a voter and outweighs – a) sequencing – it's the only way to uphold other voters, and b) all voters beg the question of what norms or interpretations are consistent with their impacts.Read the interps as a combo shell – it's easy to win which solves and link turns the counterinterp.Reject answers – you can just read the interps as a combo shell. This shell outweighs since it constraints whether you can evaluate the initial shells and serves as a counter-interp to their shell and it's a meta-constraint to all their shells because it indicts the practice. | 1/16/22 |
1 - Must Disclose Off-Case PositionsTournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Arshita Sandhiparthi Violation: screenshot in the doc – they don’t. Their name isn’t there Voters: | 9/19/21 |
1 - Must Open SourceTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley RT | Judge: Chen, Vanessa ShellInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive speech docs open source with highlighting on the NDCA LD wiki within an hour after debating. | 1/15/22 |
1 - Must Weigh T and KTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Nelson, Arianna
| 12/4/21 |
1 - No Neg NIBsTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: St Peter, Joshua | 12/4/21 |
1 - Potential InterpsTournament: The USFG Classic | Round: 9 | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Note: I reserve the right to read other shells, or combo shells not listed here if the abuse is particularly egregious. | 9/19/21 |
1 - TT v1Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Linguistics – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That outweighs – a) Controls the internal link to predictability and prep which is key for clash and substantive education b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing.~3~ Inclusion – their ROTB excludes all strategies but theirs, which is bad for inclusive debates because people without comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns their ROTB.~4~ Isomorphism – ROTBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing is a binary of truth or falsity – there isn't a closest estimate. | 1/15/22 |
JF - Korsgaard v1Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan Lex r3 ACFwk – SyllogismsSyllogismThe meta-ethic is non-naturalism – ethics are derived from a priori principles.Prefer:1~ Empirical Uncertainty- Only internal knowledge can be trusted. Experience is corrupt – we could be dreaming, hallucinating, or being deceived by an evil demon. Infinitely outweighs because ethics would be escapable and therefore pointless.2~ Constitutivism- Only a priori knowledge exists across all subjects, empirics vary.3~ Is/ought gap- Empirics tell us what is, not what ought to be. Descriptions can't prove ought statements; only internal knowledge can prove oughts.4~ Infinite regress – we can always ask "why should I follow this framework," leading to infinite regress, but asking for a reason for reason concedes its authority, meaning only my framework solves for regress5~ Only agency is inescapable – reasoning whether to engage in a practice is conducted external to that practice through intentional agency: this is exercising rationality. Even the assessment whether to be an agent is itself an instance of practical reasoning that is exclusively the role of agency.Thus the standard is consistency with universalizable ethics1~ Reason implies universalizabilityKorsgaard 85 2~ Non-contradiction – there is no world in which p and ~p are both true. Acting recognizes the validity of others to take the action, which makes universal maxims a logical side constraint to other frameworks.3~ Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, making ethics uselessPrefer Additionally1~ Performativity – freedom is key to argumentation. Abiding by their ethical theory presupposes we own ourselves, making it incoherent to justify a standard without first willing ours.2~ Other frameworks collapse – they contain conditional obligations which derive authority from the categorical imperative.Korsgaard 96 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, introduction to "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," 1996, Cambridge University Press, accessed 6 September 2021 pg. xvii-xviii, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/c/1868/files/2012/12/Kant-Groundwork-ng0pby.pdf AG recut 3~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence and statistics puts small school debaters without huge files at a disadvantage, but my framework can be won without prep, which means it's theoretically preferable and controls the i/l to other voters because accessing the debate space is a prerequisite.4~ Actor specificity—societies are just conglomerates of reasoners.Laurence 11 Ben Laurence 2011 (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago) "An Anscombean Approach to Collective Action" in Ford and Hornsby, Eds. Essays on Anscombe's Intention (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011) 293-294 5~ Real world education: an understanding of Kantianism is key to understanding the law in the real world because most states abide by inviolable side-constraints in their constitutions—Germany proves.Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009 AdvocacyI affirm – appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. CPS and Pics affirm because they don't disprove my general thesis. I'll defend neg preferences on specification as long as it doesn't change the principle of my aff - check spec in CX.Offense1~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf 2~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth3~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent – there could be other agents there, and it can't be deemed an agents property lest agents have a rational conception of it.4~ In outer space, there is no governing authority and thus claiming property imposes your will over others.Stilz, 9 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st UnderviewThe role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Linguistics – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That outweighs – a) Controls the internal link to predictability and prep which is key for clash and substantive education b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing.~3~ Inclusion – their ROTB excludes all strategies but theirs, which is bad for inclusive debates because people without comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns their ROTB.~4~ Isomorphism – ROTBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing is a binary of truth or falsity – there isn't a closest estimate.Interpretation: The negative must concede to the affirmative's framework if the standard is consistency with universalizable ethics.B. Violation: It's pre-emptiveC. Standards:1. Time skew – Shifting the burden structure in the 1N nullifies 6 minutes of the AC which creates a 7-13 skew. It's impossible to recover because neg speeches are on balance longer than the next aff speech. Infinite abuse since they'll just spread me out and blow up whatever im forced to drop.2. Prep Skew – I can't cut offense under their framework in 4 minutes of prep, whereas they can engage since the aff is disclosed 30 minutes before the round and you have access to unique positions like T, NIBs, and CPs.Theory1~ Aff gets 1AR theory because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible. It's DTD and no RVIs, and Competing Interps– the 1AR is too short for theory and substance so ballot implications are key to check abuse and they can dump 6 minutes of answers to a short argument and make the 2AR impossible, and 1AR interps aren't bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time.2~ Aff theory highest layer of the round – they get thirteen minutes on theory vs our seven minutes – they'll say we can read 1AC theory but we can't preempt every possible abuse story and don't allow new 2NR theory or paradigm issues – makes the aff always lose since there's no way to cover everything in the 2AR, and paradigm issues can be contested in the 1NC.3~ Aff fairness comes prior to NC arguments cuz its key to compensate structural skew – proves affirming is harder – neg side bias is statistically significantShah 21 ~Sachin Shah, 2021 "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2021 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic", NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2021/a-statistical-study-of-side-bias-on-the-2021-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/~~ Last Accessed 12/8/21 @9:34 p.m. - OHS BO~Relevancy This analysis is statistically rigorous and relevant in several aspects: (A) The data is on the current 2021 January-February topic, meaning it's relevant to rounds these months ~4~. (B) The data represents a diverse set of debating and judging styles across the country. (C) This analysis accounts for disparities in debating skill level. (D) Multiple tests validate the results. Side Bias Trends It is also interesting to look at the trend over multiple topics. Of the 243 bid distributing tournaments from August 2015 to present, the negative won 52.30 of rounds (p-value 10^-34, 99 confidence interval ~51.82, 52.78~). Of elimination rounds, the negative won 55.85 of rounds (p-value 10^-18, 99 confidence interval ~54.16, 57.54~). Additionally, after fitting logistical regression to the entire dataset, the offset was found to be 12.57. That translates to 9 of rounds for the negative where the debater predicted to win changed as a result of the bias. This continues to suggest the negative side bias might be structural and not topic specific as this analysis now includes 18 topics. Although debaters commonly use theoretical arguments that negating is harder in rounds i.e., judge psychology, affirmatives speak first and last, etc., these arguments are superseded by the empirical evidence. Even if these arguments correctly point out an advantage for the affirmative, the data shows that after accounting for all advantages and disadvantages (for both sides), negating is still easier. Given a structural advantage for the negative, the affirmative may be justified in being granted a substantive advantage to compensate for the structural skew. This could take various forms such as granting the affirmative presumption ground, tiny plans, or framework choice. Whatever form chosen should be tested to ensure the skew is not unintentionally reversed. Permissibility and Presumption:They affirm:1~ If not, we'd have to have a proactive justification to do things like drinking water.2~ Linguistics:University of Missouri no date University of Missouri, "Ethical Theory," no date, University of Missouri School of Medicine, accessed 6 September 2021, https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/theory OHS BO~Expanding the category of "morally right" to include three different subcategories better captures the distinctions we want: 3~ Logically safer since it's better to be supererogatory than to fail to meet an obligation.4~ If I told you my name was Bryce, you'd believe me until it was proven otherwise.5~ We wouldn't be able to start a strand of reasoning since we'd have to question that reason.6~ Time skew – the neg gets 7 minutes to respond to the AC and 6 minutes to respond to the 1AR, o/w cuz it controls access to the ballot.7~ Reciprocity – aff proving obligation means it's reciprocal for the neg to prove negative obligation.FW~1~ Aggregation fails – a) there's no brightline for impact weighing – 10 headaches don't make a migraine b) perceptions of pain and pleasure differ, which is why masochists exist, which disproves motivation and pleasure's intrinsic goodness.~2~ Prediction fails – util relies on predicting the future, but policymakers are worse than monkeys, which takes out all their impacts insofar as they are reliant on predictions.Menand 05 Louis Menand, professor of English at Harvard University, "Everybody's An Expert" 27 November 2005, The New Yorker, accessed 7 September 2021, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS recut ~3~ We don't know if an action is bad until after it happens, which means obligations can't be formed~4~ Infinite consequences – every consequence causes another consequence – when do we evaluate "the consequence?"~5~ Induction fails –we know induction works because it has in the past – that relies on induction and is circular.~6~ Calculative regress – util requires us to calculate the morality and time spent on calculation, leading to infinite regress and halting action. | 1/15/22 |
JF - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: Li, Evan Lex r6 ACFwk – SyllogismsSyllogismThe meta-ethic is non-naturalism – ethics are derived from a priori principles.Prefer:1~ Empirical Uncertainty- Only internal knowledge can be trusted. Experience is corrupt – we could be dreaming, hallucinating, or being deceived by an evil demon. Infinitely outweighs because ethics would be escapable and therefore pointless.2~ Constitutivism- Only a priori knowledge exists across all subjects, empirics vary.3~ Is/ought gap- Empirics tell us what is, not what ought to be. Descriptions can't prove ought statements; only internal knowledge can prove oughts.4~ Infinite regress – we can always ask "why should I follow this framework," leading to infinite regress, but asking for a reason for reason concedes its authority, meaning only my framework solves for regress5~ Only agency is inescapable – reasoning whether to engage in a practice is conducted external to that practice through intentional agency: this is exercising rationality. Even the assessment whether to be an agent is itself an instance of practical reasoning that is exclusively the role of agency.Thus the standard is consistency with universalizable ethics1~ Reason implies universalizabilityKorsgaard 85 2~ Non-contradiction – there is no world in which p and ~p are both true. Acting recognizes the validity of others to take the action, which makes universal maxims a logical side constraint to other frameworks.3~ Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, making ethics uselessPrefer Additionally1~ Performativity – freedom is key to argumentation. Abiding by their ethical theory presupposes we own ourselves, making it incoherent to justify a standard without first willing ours.2~ Other frameworks collapse – they contain conditional obligations which derive authority from the categorical imperative.Korsgaard 96 Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, introduction to "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," 1996, Cambridge University Press, accessed 6 September 2021 pg. xvii-xviii, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/c/1868/files/2012/12/Kant-Groundwork-ng0pby.pdf AG recut 3~ Resource disparities – focus on evidence and statistics puts small school debaters without huge files at a disadvantage, but my framework can be won without prep, which means it's theoretically preferable and controls the i/l to other voters because accessing the debate space is a prerequisite.4~ Actor specificity—societies are just conglomerates of reasoners.Laurence 11 Ben Laurence 2011 (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago) "An Anscombean Approach to Collective Action" in Ford and Hornsby, Eds. Essays on Anscombe's Intention (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011) 293-294 5~ Real world education: an understanding of Kantianism is key to understanding the law in the real world because most states abide by inviolable side-constraints in their constitutions—Germany proves.Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009 AdvocacyI affirm – appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. CPS and Pics affirm because they don't disprove my general thesis. I'll defend neg preferences on specification as long as it doesn't change the principle of my aff - check spec in CX.Offense1~ Private entities are incapable of making omnilateral decisions as privatization entails that they withhold information which limits deliberation over making maxims.Chiara Cordelli 2016, University of Chicago, Political Science and the College cordelli@uchicago.edu https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization_UCB.pdf 2~ Space Exploration is non universalizable - Entails that everyone leaves Earth which means that no one would be around to create the means to leave earth3~ Space is not subject to property rights – a). It has no physical manifestation as space is by definition the absence of matter which means it cannot be measured, bordered, or divided, thus it cannot be owned b). Owning unexplored planets/space is incoherent – there could be other agents there, and it can't be deemed an agents property lest agents have a rational conception of it.4~ In outer space, there is no governing authority and thus claiming property imposes your will over others.Stilz, 9 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st 5~ In the state of nature, everyone is an equal arbitrator of justice – that makes rights violations impossible to resolve.Stilz 2 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st UnderviewInterpretation: The negative must concede to the affirmative's framework if the standard is consistency with universalizable ethics.B. Violation: It's pre-emptiveC. Standards:1. Time skew – Shifting the burden structure in the 1N nullifies 6 minutes of the AC which creates a 7-13 skew. It's impossible to recover because neg speeches are on balance longer than the next aff speech. Infinite abuse since they'll just spread me out and blow up whatever im forced to drop.2. Prep Skew – I can't cut offense under their framework in 4 minutes of prep, whereas they can engage since the aff is disclosed 30 minutes before the round and you have access to unique positions like T, NIBs, and CPs.Theory1~ Aff gets 1AR theory because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible. It's DTD and no RVIs, and Competing Interps– the 1AR is too short for theory and substance so ballot implications are key to check abuse and they can dump 6 minutes of answers to a short argument and make the 2AR impossible, and 1AR interps aren't bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time.2~ Aff theory highest layer of the round – they get thirteen minutes on theory vs our seven minutes – they'll say we can read 1AC theory but we can't preempt every possible abuse story and don't allow new 2NR theory or paradigm issues – makes the aff always lose since there's no way to cover everything in the 2AR, and paradigm issues can be contested in the 1NC.Permissibility and Presumption:They affirm:1~ If not, we'd have to have a proactive justification to do things like drinking water.2~ Linguistics:University of Missouri no date University of Missouri, "Ethical Theory," no date, University of Missouri School of Medicine, accessed 6 September 2021, https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/theory OHS BO~Expanding the category of "morally right" to include three different subcategories better captures the distinctions we want: 3~ Logically safer since it's better to be supererogatory than to fail to meet an obligation.4~ If I told you my name was Bryce, you'd believe me until it was proven otherwise.5~ We wouldn't be able to start a strand of reasoning since we'd have to question that reason.6~ Reciprocity – aff proving obligation means it's reciprocal for the neg to prove negative obligation.FW~1~ Aggregation fails – a) there's no brightline for impact weighing – 10 headaches don't make a migraine b) perceptions of pain and pleasure differ, which is why masochists exist, which disproves motivation and pleasure's intrinsic goodness.~2~ Prediction fails – util relies on predicting the future, but policymakers are worse than monkeys, which takes out all their impacts insofar as they are reliant on predictions.Menand 05 Louis Menand, professor of English at Harvard University, "Everybody's An Expert" 27 November 2005, The New Yorker, accessed 7 September 2021, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS recut ~3~ We don't know if an action is bad until after it happens, which means obligations can't be formed~4~ Infinite consequences – every consequence causes another consequence – when do we evaluate "the consequence?"~5~ Induction fails –we know induction works because it has in the past – that relies on induction and is circular.~6~ Calculative regress – util requires us to calculate the morality and time spent on calculation, leading to infinite regress and halting action.The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.~1~ Every statement is a question of truth – for example, saying "the res is false" is the same as saying, "it is true that the res is false." That means other ROTBs collapse to truth testing.~2~ Inclusion – their ROTB excludes all strategies but theirs, which is bad for inclusive debates because people without comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns their ROTB.~3~ Inclusion – their ROTB excludes all strategies but theirs, which is bad for inclusive debates because people without comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns their ROTB.~4~ Isomorphism – ROTBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing is a binary of truth or falsity – there isn't a closest estimate. | 1/16/22 |
JF - Space Debris v1Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley RT | Judge: Chen, Vanessa Lex R1 ACPlan:I affirm - The appropriation of outer space through the production of space debris by private entities is unjust.Advantage - Space DebrisPrivatization of space leads to unchecked debris.Muelhaupt et al. 19 – Theodore, Marlon Sorge, Jamie Morin, and Robert Wilson, 6/18/19, Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, Center for Space Policy and Strategy, The Aerospace Corporation, 30 year Space Systems Analyst and Operator, ~"Space traffic management in the new space era," Journal of Space Safety Engineering, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246889671930045X?via3Dihub~~ Justin Privatization exponentially increases the curve but ending dangerous missions stops it.Bernat 20 – Pawel, 2020, Military University of Aviation, ~"ORBITAL SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS AND THE GROWING THREAT OF KESSLER SYNDROME IN THE LOWER EARTH ORBIT," SAFETY ENGINEERING OF ANTHROPOGENIC OBJECTS, Volume 4, PDF~ Justin Space Debris infinitely cascades due to the Kessler effect, making entire orbits unusableMatignon, L. D. G. (2019, June 18). The Kessler syndrome and space debris. Space Legal Issues. ear https://www.spacelegalissues.com/space-law-the-kessler-syndrome/ Louis de Gouyon Matignon has a PhD in space law (co-supervised by both Philippe Delebecque, from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France, and Christopher D. Johnson, from Georgetown University, Washington D.C.); Three Scenarios:Scenario 1 is Global War -Debris triggers miscalculated war.Peter Dockrill 16. Award-winning science and technology journalist. "Space Junk Accidents Could Trigger Armed Conflict, Study Finds." https://www.sciencealert.com/space-junk-accidents-could-trigger-armed-conflict-expert-warns. ====Goes nuclear.==== Any nuclear war causes extinction – ice age and famine.Steven Starr 15 ~Director of the University of Missouri's Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has worked with the Swiss, Chilean, and Swedish governments in support of their efforts at the United Nations to eliminate thousands of high-alert, launch-ready U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. "Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen." Ratical. March 2015. https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/StevenStarr022815.html~~ TG Scenario 2 is WarmingSpace Debris trades off with effective warming mitigationManner 21 ~Jennifer Manneris senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Hughes Network Systems. 7-27-2021, "Utilizing space to fight climate change on Earth," TheHill, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/565054-utilizing-space-to-fight-climate-change-on-earth~~/ISEE Climate Change is existentialNg '19 ~Yew-Kwang; May 2019; Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technology University, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of the Advisory Board at the Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. in Economics from Sydney University; Global Policy, "Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism," vol. 10, no. 2, p. 258-266; RP~ AND autonomous outsourcing—-extinctionKlare and Perry '21 — Michael Klare, Five College, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies, and director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies, B.A. and M.A. from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute, serves on the board of the Arms Control Association and advises other organizations; Lucas Perry, interviewer; (July 30th 2021; "Michael Klare on the Pentagon's view of Climate Change and the Risks of State Collapse"; Future of Life Institute; https://futureoflife.org/2021/07/30/michael-klare-on-the-pentagons-view-of-climate-change-and-the-risks-of-state-collapse/?cn-reloaded=1; LFS—JCM) Scenario 3 is Global TensionSpace Debris would destroy internet and GPS access worldwideIBERDROLA. (2021, June 30). Space Debris. Retrieved December 7, 2021, ear from https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/space-debris ear Iberdrola SA is a holding company, which engages in the generation, distribution, trading, and marketing of electricity. It operates through the following businesses: Networks, Liberalized, Renewables and Other Businesses. AND Space debris creates uncertainty about involvement of adversaries which can create armed conflict, the more space debris, the increased likelihood of conflict.Sample, I. (2016, January 22). Rise in space junk could provoke armed conflict say scientists. The Guardian. Retrieved December 14, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/22/rise-in-space-junk-could-provoke-armed-conflict-say-scientists. Ian Sample is science editor of the Guardian. Before joining the newspaper in 2003, he was a journalist at New Scientist and worked at the Institute of Physics as a journal editor. He has a PhD in biomedical materials from Queen Mary's, University of London. Ian also presents the Science Weekly podcast. ech Space Debris contaminates environments on earthLuke, C. (2021, September 6). What is Space Junk and How Does It Affect the Environment? Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future. Retrieved December 6, 2021, from https://earth.org/space-junk-what-is-it-what-can-we-do-about-it/ ear Earth.Org is a not-for-profit environmental organization based in Hong Kong. Their aim is to bring attention to what is happening to natural ecosystems worldwide. ... Climate change and environmental degradation create existential risks, caused by our decision to gamble on the outcomes of unsustainable activity. UnderviewFrameworkThe Meta-Ethic is NaturalismThe standard is maximizing expected wellbeing. Pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 – Kenneth Blum, 1Department of Psychiatry, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton VA Medical Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA 5Department of Precision Medicine, Geneus Health LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA 6Department of Addiction Research and Therapy, Nupathways Inc., Innsbrook, MO, USA 7Department of Clinical Neurology, Path Foundation, New York, NY, USA 8Division of Neuroscience-Based Addiction Therapy, The Shores Treatment and Recovery Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA 9Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 10Division of Addiction Research, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC. North Kingston, RI, USA 11Victory Nutrition International, Lederach, PA., USA 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA, Marjorie Gondré-Lewis, 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA 13Departments of Anatomy and Psychiatry, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC US, Bruce Steinberg, 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA, Igor Elman, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, David Baron, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Edward J Modestino, 14Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA, Rajendra D Badgaiyan, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, Mark S Gold 16Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, "Our evolved unique pleasure circuit makes humans different from apes: Reconsideration of data derived from animal studies", U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 February 2018, accessed: 19 August 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446569/, R.S. Prefer:1~ Actor spec—governments must use util because they don't have intentions and are constantly dealing with tradeoffs—outweighs since different agents have different obligations—takes out calc indicts since they are empirically denied.2~ No intent-foresight distinction for states.Enoch 07 Enoch, D ~The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew Unviersity, Mount Scopus Campus, Jersusalem~. (2007). INTENDING, FORESEEING, AND THE STATE. Legal Theory, 13(02). doi:10.1017/s1352325207070048 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/intending-foreseeing-and-the-state/76B18896B94D5490ED0512D8E8DC54B2 3~ Death is bad and o/w—ontologically destroys the subject.Paterson 1 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) 4~ Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework – Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework.5~ Weighability – only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to meet up for lunch, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain why the second one is much worse than the first. Intuitions outweigh—they're the foundational basis for any argument and theories that contradict our intuitions are most likely false even if we can't deduce why.Theory1~ Aff gets 1AR theory because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible. It's DTD and no RVIs, and Competing Interps– the 1AR is too short for theory and substance so ballot implications are key to check abuse and they can dump 6 minutes of answers to a short argument and make the 2AR impossible, and 1AR interps aren't bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time.2~ Aff theory highest layer of the round – they get thirteen minutes on theory vs our seven minutes – they'll say we can read 1AC theory but we can't preempt every possible abuse story and don't allow new 2NR theory or paradigm issues – makes the aff always lose since there's no way to cover everything in the 2AR, and paradigm issues can be contested in the 1NC.3~ Aff fairness comes prior to NC arguments cuz its key to compensate structural skew – proves affirming is harder – neg side bias is statistically significantShah 21 ~Sachin Shah, 2021 "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2021 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic", NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2021/a-statistical-study-of-side-bias-on-the-2021-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/~~ Last Accessed 12/8/21 @9:34 p.m. - OHS BO~Relevancy This analysis is statistically rigorous and relevant in several aspects: (A) The data is on the current 2021 January-February topic, meaning it's relevant to rounds these months ~4~. (B) The data represents a diverse set of debating and judging styles across the country. (C) This analysis accounts for disparities in debating skill level. (D) Multiple tests validate the results. Side Bias Trends It is also interesting to look at the trend over multiple topics. Of the 243 bid distributing tournaments from August 2015 to present, the negative won 52.30 of rounds (p-value 10^-34, 99 confidence interval ~51.82, 52.78~). Of elimination rounds, the negative won 55.85 of rounds (p-value 10^-18, 99 confidence interval ~54.16, 57.54~). Additionally, after fitting logistical regression to the entire dataset, the offset was found to be 12.57. That translates to 9 of rounds for the negative where the debater predicted to win changed as a result of the bias. This continues to suggest the negative side bias might be structural and not topic specific as this analysis now includes 18 topics. Although debaters commonly use theoretical arguments that negating is harder in rounds i.e., judge psychology, affirmatives speak first and last, etc., these arguments are superseded by the empirical evidence. Even if these arguments correctly point out an advantage for the affirmative, the data shows that after accounting for all advantages and disadvantages (for both sides), negating is still easier. Given a structural advantage for the negative, the affirmative may be justified in being granted a substantive advantage to compensate for the structural skew. This could take various forms such as granting the affirmative presumption ground, tiny plans, or framework choice. Whatever form chosen should be tested to ensure the skew is not unintentionally reversed. Permissibility and Presumption:They affirm:1~ If not, we'd have to have a proactive justification to do things like drinking water.2~ Linguistics:University of Missouri no date University of Missouri, "Ethical Theory," no date, University of Missouri School of Medicine, accessed 6 September 2021, https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/theory OHS BO~Expanding the category of "morally right" to include three different subcategories better captures the distinctions we want: 3~ Logically safer since it's better to be supererogatory than to fail to meet an obligation.4~ If I told you my name was Bryce, you'd believe me until it was proven otherwise.5~ We wouldn't be able to start a strand of reasoning since we'd have to question that reason.6~ Time skew – the neg gets 7 minutes to respond to the AC and 6 minutes to respond to the 1AR, o/w cuz it controls access to the ballot.7~ Reciprocity – aff proving obligation means it's reciprocal for the neg to prove negative obligation. | 1/15/22 |
MA - AC Lay v1Tournament: FFL Varsity States | Round: 1 | Opponent: Our Lady of Lo Gabriella Puig | Judge: Ciocca, Daniel FrameworkI affirm the resolution: Resolved; In a democracy, a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy.I value democracy, defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 7-27-2006, "Democracy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/, hzheng Prefer:1~ The resolution asks about whether free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy within a democracy, which already assumes that the resolution is framed by what is best for democracy.2~ Democracy is the best way to respect inherent equality. Any political system must be able to respect the fact that because we are all equally human, we all deserve equality, which means that democracy is the best system because it allows everybody to be equally represented via voting.My criterion is Political Legitimacy, defined by Jorge Aragon from Saint Louis University as:Jorge Aragon, xx-xx-xxxx, "Encyclopedia of Campaigns, Elections and Electoral Behavior," Sage Publications, https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/dccirp/pdfs/articlesforresourc/Article_-_Aragon_Trelles,_Jorge_2.pdf, hzheng Prefer, as the only way to ensure democracy is true democracy is through making sure the political system through which it operates is able to legitimately ensure the equality of the people and justify itself.I reserve the right to define a word in a future speech if necessary.DefinitionsA free press is the freedom of expression in media without limitations by othersLiberties.EU 21 ~Civil Liberties Union for Europe, rights advocacy organization in Europe, 11-9-2021, "Free press: definition and role in democracy," Liberties.eu, https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-press/43809~~/Kankee Prioritize means to value something as more important than something elseCollins Dictionary No Date ~Collins Dictionary, No Date, "Prioritize definition and meaning," Collins Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/prioritize~~/Kankee Objectivity in journalism is fact-based, non-subjective reportingMcLaughlin 16 ~Greg McLaughlin, senior lecturer in media and journalism at the University of Ulster, 2016, "Journalism, Objectivity and War," The War Correspondent, https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt19qgf0x.7~~/Kankee Advocacy means to favor a specific viewpointCambridge Dictionary No Date ~Cambridge Dictionary, No Date, "advocacy," https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/advocacy~~/Kankee Contention One is Inherent GoodSubpoint A: Objectivity is Inherently GoodFirst, any attempt to reject objectivity will necessarily be contradictory. In making the claim that "objectivity should be rejected," my opponent also makes the claim that "it is objectively true that objectivity should be rejected," because any statement is the same if the phrase "it is objectively true that" is added before it; otherwise, they wouldn't be pointing to this statement as an example of truth. However, they rely on a notion of objectivity in order to reject objectivity; thus, rejecting objectivity always generates a performative contradiction. Because contradictions can't generate truth – two plus two can't equal both four and five – rejecting objectivity will always be incoherent.Additionally, don't let them try to argue that something is "subjectively true" – it's incoherent, because two plus two can't be true for me but not for you. There is objective truth and you can't reject it.Subpoint B: Constitutive PurposeThe point of journalism is to provide a news story; otherwise, journalism would not exist. It only exists in order to provide information. However, if journalism does not provide an unbiased news story, it is worthless insofar as it is not fulfilling its purpose – it's a broken clock. Biased news stories are necessarily distortions of the truth, whether through exaggeration or omission; and thus, the press is not serving its purpose, and has no point in existence.Contention Two is PolarizationPartisan media is critical in the polarization of viewers – psychology proves. Levendusky 13 writes,Matthew S. Levendusky (University of Pennsylvania), 7-xx-2013, "Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?," Midwest Political Science Association, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496642, hzheng How Partisan Media Polarize Viewers Polarization is deeply damaging to democracy – there's a laundry list of reasons: gridlock, intolerance, anti-activism, etc. Furthermore, it's going to cause a self-repeating cycle where division breeds division, making the problem worse and worse. Carothers and O'Donohue 19 write,Thomas Carothers (is the senior vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a leading authority on international support for democracy, human rights, governance, the rule of law, and civil society) and Andrew O'Donohue (was a nonresident research assistant in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, where his research focuses on political polarization and challenges facing democratic governance), 10-1-2019, "How to Understand the Global Spread of Political Polarization," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-global-spread-of-political-polarization-pub-79893, hzheng Contention Three is Distrust of MediaBias in media leads to perceived inadequacy, where citizens don't trust media that advocates because they simply don't think it'll tell the full story. Sands 20 writes,John Sands (is director for learning and impact at Knight Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @iohnsands), 11-9-2020, "Americans are losing faith in an objective media. A new Gallup/Knight study explores why," Knight Foundation, https://knightfoundation.org/articles/americans-are-losing-faith-in-an-objective-media-a-new-gallup-knight-study-explores-why/, hzheng The newest studies prove – there is causation between time spent on polarized news and distrust. Huber 21 writes,B. Rose Huber (Princeton School of Public and International Affairs), 3-29-2021, "Consuming online partisan news leads to distrust in the media," Princeton University, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/03/29/consuming-online-partisan-news-leads-distrust-media, hzheng, bracketed for clarity Trust in media is instrumental to democracy – absent it, we get ignorant citizens which seriously threatens the legitimacy of political participation. Elrod 03 writes,Jennifer Elrod (B.A., cum laude, Queens College; J.D., City University of New York Law School; LL.M., Columbia Law School; Doctoral Candidate, Columbia Law School), "PROTECTING JOURNALISTS FROM COMPELLED DISCLOSURE: A PROPOSAL FOR A FEDERAL STATUTE," Legislation And Public Policy, Vol. 7:115, 2003, recut hzheng Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot. | 3/5/22 |
MA - AC Lay v2Tournament: FFL Varsity States | Round: 4 | Opponent: Jesuit High Maxwell Harden | Judge: Kunkel, Dyaeli Prefer: Prefer, as the only way to ensure democracy is true democracy is through making sure the political system through which it operates is able to legitimately ensure the equality of the people and justify itself. Prioritize means to value something as more important than something else Objectivity in journalism is fact-based, non-subjective reporting Advocacy means to favor a specific viewpoint Contention One is Inherent Good Polarization is deeply damaging to democracy – there's a laundry list of reasons: gridlock, intolerance, anti-activism, etc. Furthermore, it's going to cause a self-repeating cycle where division breeds division, making the problem worse and worse. Carothers and O'Donohue 19 write, Contention Three is Distrust of Media The newest studies prove – there is causation between time spent on polarized news and distrust. Huber 21 writes, Trust in media is instrumental to democracy – absent it, we get ignorant citizens which seriously threatens the legitimacy of political participation. Elrod 03 writes, Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot. | 3/6/22 |
MA - NC Lay v3Tournament: FFL Varsity States | Round: 5 | Opponent: American Heritage Mary Abi Karam | Judge: Hernandez, Javier Prefer: Prefer, as the only way to ensure democracy is true democracy is through making sure the political system through which it operates is able to legitimately ensure the equality of the people and justify itself. Prioritize means to value something as more important than something else Objectivity in journalism is fact-based, non-subjective reporting Advocacy means to favor a specific viewpoint Contention One is Inherent Good Polarization is deeply damaging to democracy – there's a laundry list of reasons: gridlock, intolerance, anti-activism, etc. Furthermore, it's going to cause a self-repeating cycle where division breeds division, making the problem worse and worse. Carothers and O'Donohue 19 write, Contention Three is Distrust of Media The newest studies prove – there is causation between time spent on polarized news and distrust. Huber 21 writes, Trust in media is instrumental to democracy – absent it, we get ignorant citizens which seriously threatens the legitimacy of political participation. Elrod 03 writes, Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot. | 3/6/22 |
ND - China v1Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Nelson, Arianna | 12/4/21 |
ND - China v2Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: St Peter, Joshua | 12/4/21 |
ND - China v3Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Randolph CC | Judge: Riggs, Tara | 12/4/21 |
SO - Evergreening v1Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Syosset BL | Judge: Amulya Natchakuri | 9/19/21 |
SO - Evergreening v2Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Arshita Sandhiparthi | 9/19/21 |
SO - Evergreening v3Tournament: Duke Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AW | Judge: Gomez, Antonio | 10/1/21 |
SO - Evergreening v4Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Village RB | Judge: Fees, Bennett | 12/3/21 |
SO - Evergreening v5Tournament: Duke Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Durham ZG | Judge: Ham, Callie | 12/3/21 |
SO - Substance FirstTournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield, Steven Scopa, Dave McGinnis | 12/3/21 |
SO - Trad AffTournament: Duke Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham AA | Judge: He, Anwen | 12/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/1/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/3/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
3/5/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
3/6/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
3/6/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | bryceqownby@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/3/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
| |
12/3/21 | nasalovingbrit@gmailcom |
|