Princeton Wrone Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Aleena Reddy | Jacob Palmer |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Aidan Liu | Arianna Nelson |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Opponent: Aleena Reddy | Judge: Jacob Palmer AC Non-domination Petit |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Opponent: Aidan Liu | Judge: Arianna Nelson AC - Prison workers |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Contact InfoTournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all Email: davitadw9@gmail.com | 7/8/21 |
ND Econ DATournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aleena Reddy | Judge: Jacob Palmer Econ DAThe economic costs of labor strikes outweigh the intended benefits – even small actions can cause a ripple-effect in international trade Economic collapse causes competition for resources and instability that triggers hotspots around the globe – co-opts all other causes of warHarris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit "Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis" http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f'0016178'13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict AND within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. Case~1~ Strikes treat people as mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG AND the social work training process and is enshrined in the professional ethical codes. ~2~ Strikes in essential services hurt the patient but not the employer which reduces the patient to a mere means to an end.Loewy 2K, Erich H. "Of healthcare professionals, ethics, and strikes." Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 9 (2000): 513. (Erich H. Loewy M.D., F.A.C.P., was born in Vienna, Austria in 1927 and was able to escape first to England and then to the U.S. in late 1938. He was initially trained as a cardiologist. He taught at Case Western Reserve and practiced in Cleveland, Ohio. After 14 years he devoted himself fully to Bioethics and taught at the University of Illinois for 12 years. In 1996 he was selected as the first endowed Alumni Association Chair of Bioethics at the University of California Davis School of Medicine and has taught there since.) JG AND to "hurt" patients and often patients known to the healthcare professionals. ~3~ Freedom to strike cannot come at the expense of others AND they might not have ethical motivations.Muñoz 14, Cristian Pérez. "Essential Services, Workers’ Freedom, and Distributive Justice." Social Theory and Practice 40.4 (2014): 649-672. (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida) JG AND ie. I can prove it to be red or black or green. | 12/4/21 |
ND Util v1Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Aleena Reddy | Judge: Jacob Palmer UtilThe standard is maximizing expected well-being.~ 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.~ Actor specificity: util is the best for governments, which is the actor in the rez – multiple warrants:~a~ Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action.~d~ Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action.4~ 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. That impacts to weighing meaning rounds are only resolvable under our interpTo distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary interference requires some higher normative metric making republicanism question-begging. Larmore 1:Charles Larmore, ~University of Chicago~ "A Critique of Philip Pettit’s Republicanism" RE AND , or the outcome will have no claim to being fair and just. B) The problem of intervening actors. If someone cheats on their spouse and the spouse kills them in response, the cheater is not responsible for their own death. Likewise, the NC can’t garner offense from causing other actors to minimize domination.FW – Util1 – Their arbitrary power standard lacks a definition – that means it’s impossible to enforce the standard which is a takeout to its ethical desirability2 – The standard is just an instantiation of rule util according to Pettit - Rule util must collapse to act util because we constantly adjust our rules to maximize goodness on balance, like avoiding extinction – that means that the only rule that maximizes goodness is act util3 – Judgements about freedom/domination depend on the consequences of our lives – that devolves to util because if we value good consequences it follows we should maximize them5 – They don’t have a reason why we shouldn’t weigh domination against other goods – that devolves to util because it necessitates maximizing good consequences6 – There’s no intrinsic value in freedom without a positive obligation to protect wellbeing – collapses to util. Chappell 05Richard Chappell, PhD, Princeton University. Libertarian vs. Utilitarian Justice, Philosophy. June 2005. JC AND any case. We are thus led back in the direction of utilitarianism. 7 – Their notion of independence doesn't make sense – domination is possible via certain acts that you can always exercise like force, which means it's hard to know what it means to have power over someone – means their notion of freedom is indeterminate, so we need classical freedom which devolves to util as shown above8 – Even if ethical life occupies other norms, we always react in cases of known preventable harms – we’re virtually obligated to be consequentialist, even under a model of non-domination – YOUR AUTHORPettit 95 ~Philip Pettit (Irish Philosopher. Civic republicanism dude.) "The Virtual Reality of ‘Homo Economicus.’" The Monist Vol. 78 No. 3. July 1995.~ MK AND which by the common values of the culture is what the situation requires. | 12/4/21 |
T - SubsetsTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Aidan Liu | Judge: Arianna Nelson A~ Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a subset of workers that ought to be banned.B ~ Violation – They identify prison workersStandards:~1~ Limits – specifying any subset of workers allows for a functionally infinite number of affs – that explodes the neg prep burden and can’t meaningfully engage.~2~ Ground – specifying a tiny subset of workers means the aff is too small to link into neg ground – I lose things like the Econ DA and the climate DA – they cut off access to an entire subset of offense I can gain.~3~ Arg Quality – small affs are written and run for a single round to be as unpredictable as possible – whole res affs are more predictable and incentivize creative, nuanced argumentation.~4~ TVA: read a whole-res aff and run your offense as an advantage – that allows topic research while also granting me core disads.D~ Voters:Fairness is a voter – it is intrinsic to any competitive activity and comes before substance since we don’t know if an argument was true if it was unfair in the first placeEducation is a voter – it’s the only reason schools fund debateDrop the debater – 1~ it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm 2~ time spent on theory can’t be made up and it took away from my shot at substanceUse competing interps – 1~ reasonability is self-serving and arbitrary since they can justify their brightline no matter how abusive it is 2~ it invites arbitrary judge intervention and we won’t know your abuse meter 3~ competing interps ensures we are setting the best norms for debateNo RVIs – 1~ they’re illogical since you shouldn’t win just for proving you’re fair 2~ i can’t concede to the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms 3~ causes a chilling effect since debaters will be scared to run theory which means abuse goes unchecked | 12/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
12/4/21 | davitadw9@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | davitadw9@gmailcom |
|