Prospect Tian Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| apple valley | 1 | st agnes eh | tajaih robinson |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 3 | peninsula bd | lukas krause |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | 6 | bronx science nk | phoenix pittman |
|
|
| |
| apple valley | Octas | lexington jb | austin broussard, tajaih robinson, braedon kirkpatrick |
|
|
| |
| blake | 1 | lincoln east high jz | javier hernandez |
|
|
| |
| blake | 3 | iowa west nw | conal thomas-mcginnis |
|
|
| |
| blake | 5 | lexington bf | gordon krauss |
|
|
| |
| blake | Octas | valley rt | lawrence zhou, curtis chang, jeong-wan choi |
|
|
| |
| blake | Semis | byram hills ak | jeong-wan choi, vishvak bandi, conal thomas-mcginnis |
|
|
| |
| blue key | 2 | nova cd | wyatt hatfield |
|
|
| |
| blue key | 3 | lake travis ma | sanjana bhatnagar |
|
|
| |
| blue key | 5 | southlake carroll sd | blake ochoa |
|
|
| |
| blue key | Octas | lake highland prep ave | rohith sudhakar, ayush saha, james stuckert |
|
|
| |
| bronx | 2 | rosemount cd | heaven montague |
|
|
| |
| bronx | 4 | nsu sf | joey georges |
|
|
| |
| bronx | 5 | king cp | jeong-wan choi |
|
|
| |
| bronx | Doubles | mission san jose ss | sai karavadi, doron darnov, roberto fernandez |
|
|
| |
| bronx | Quarters | academy of classical christian studies jm | grant brown, silma bathily, fabrice etienne |
|
|
| |
| debateLA | 1 | harvard-westlake al | brendon morris, austin broussard |
|
|
| |
| debateLA | 4 | sage mp | gabriel morbeck, chris theis |
|
|
| |
| debateLA | 5 | immaculate heart jl | claudia ribera, leah clark villanueva |
|
|
| |
| greenhill | 1 | harvard-westlake cc | truman le |
|
|
| |
| greenhill | 4 | strath haven am | nick fleming |
|
|
| |
| greenhill | 6 | immaculate heart ss | serena lu |
|
|
| |
| loyola | 1 | saratoga ag | joey georges |
|
|
| |
| loyola | 3 | kenston ej | wyatt hatfield |
|
|
| |
| loyola | 6 | millard north yl | srey das |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle | 5 | basis independent silicon valley sk | vishan chaudhary |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle | 1 | harker gs | sai karavadi |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle | 3 | lynbrook sy | avery wilson |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle | Doubles | immaculate heart rr | lukas krause, vishan chaudhary, patrick fox |
|
|
| |
| scarsdale | 2 | harrison tb | tarun ratnasabapathy |
|
|
| |
| scarsdale | 5 | bronx science ip | chianli hang |
|
|
| |
| scarsdale | 4 | stuyvesant mz | ashwin mathi |
|
|
| |
| triwizard tournament | 1 | mister spoo | minnie mcgonagall |
|
|
| |
| valley | 2 | american heritage broward em | chansey agler |
|
|
| |
| valley | 3 | boise ws | phoenix pittman |
|
|
| |
| valley | 6 | strake ks | rohit lakshman |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| apple valley | 1 | Opponent: st agnes eh | Judge: tajaih robinson 1ac - kant |
| apple valley | 3 | Opponent: peninsula bd | Judge: lukas krause 1ac - kant |
| apple valley | 6 | Opponent: bronx science nk | Judge: phoenix pittman 1ac - kant |
| apple valley | Octas | Opponent: lexington jb | Judge: austin broussard, tajaih robinson, braedon kirkpatrick 1ac - kant |
| blake | 1 | Opponent: lincoln east high jz | Judge: javier hernandez 1ac - virtue |
| blake | 3 | Opponent: iowa west nw | Judge: conal thomas-mcginnis 1ac - virtue |
| blake | 5 | Opponent: lexington bf | Judge: gordon krauss 1ac - kant |
| blake | Octas | Opponent: valley rt | Judge: lawrence zhou, curtis chang, jeong-wan choi 1ac - kant |
| blake | Semis | Opponent: byram hills ak | Judge: jeong-wan choi, vishvak bandi, conal thomas-mcginnis 1ac - kant |
| blue key | 2 | Opponent: nova cd | Judge: wyatt hatfield lay as per the request of my opp |
| blue key | 3 | Opponent: lake travis ma | Judge: sanjana bhatnagar 1ac - kant |
| blue key | 5 | Opponent: southlake carroll sd | Judge: blake ochoa 1ac - kant |
| blue key | Octas | Opponent: lake highland prep ave | Judge: rohith sudhakar, ayush saha, james stuckert 1ac - kant |
| bronx | 2 | Opponent: rosemount cd | Judge: heaven montague 1ac - virtue |
| bronx | 4 | Opponent: nsu sf | Judge: joey georges 1ac - virtue |
| bronx | 5 | Opponent: king cp | Judge: jeong-wan choi 1ac - virtue |
| bronx | Doubles | Opponent: mission san jose ss | Judge: sai karavadi, doron darnov, roberto fernandez 1ac - virtue |
| bronx | Quarters | Opponent: academy of classical christian studies jm | Judge: grant brown, silma bathily, fabrice etienne 1ac - kant |
| debateLA | 1 | Opponent: harvard-westlake al | Judge: brendon morris, austin broussard 1ac - asteroid mining |
| debateLA | 4 | Opponent: sage mp | Judge: gabriel morbeck, chris theis 1ac - asteroid mining |
| debateLA | 5 | Opponent: immaculate heart jl | Judge: claudia ribera, leah clark villanueva 1ac - kant w util adv |
| greenhill | 1 | Opponent: harvard-westlake cc | Judge: truman le 1ac - virtue |
| greenhill | 4 | Opponent: strath haven am | Judge: nick fleming 1ac - covid |
| greenhill | 6 | Opponent: immaculate heart ss | Judge: serena lu 1ac - covid |
| loyola | 1 | Opponent: saratoga ag | Judge: joey georges 1ac - virtue |
| loyola | 3 | Opponent: kenston ej | Judge: wyatt hatfield 1ac - virtue |
| loyola | 6 | Opponent: millard north yl | Judge: srey das 1ac - virtue |
| nano nagle | 5 | Opponent: basis independent silicon valley sk | Judge: vishan chaudhary 1ac - covid |
| nano nagle | 1 | Opponent: harker gs | Judge: sai karavadi 1ac - virtue |
| nano nagle | 3 | Opponent: lynbrook sy | Judge: avery wilson 1ac - disclosure virtue |
| nano nagle | Doubles | Opponent: immaculate heart rr | Judge: lukas krause, vishan chaudhary, patrick fox 1ac - virtue |
| scarsdale | 2 | Opponent: harrison tb | Judge: tarun ratnasabapathy 1ac - kant |
| scarsdale | 5 | Opponent: bronx science ip | Judge: chianli hang 1ac - lay |
| scarsdale | 4 | Opponent: stuyvesant mz | Judge: ashwin mathi 1ac - kant |
| triwizard tournament | 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall I was very impressed with you today Harry said to her I should |
| valley | 2 | Opponent: american heritage broward em | Judge: chansey agler 1ac - virtue |
| valley | 3 | Opponent: boise ws | Judge: phoenix pittman 1ac - virtue |
| valley | 6 | Opponent: strake ks | Judge: rohit lakshman 1ac - virtue |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - contact infoTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall email - ineedadebateemaillol@gmail.com | 1/8/22 |
0 - debatedrillsTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall | 1/8/22 |
0 - navigationTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall | 1/8/22 |
0 - school contactTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall to clarify, this email is for general school contact, not disclosure, so don't email this if we're about to debate next round, use the contact info under "0 - contact info" please DON'T use any contact info found on this website (http://phsdebate.weebly.com/) since it is really outdated and nobody on my team has access to any of it (this includes prospectdebate@gmail.com email). if you do, i won't be able to see it! | 1/8/22 |
0 - tournament namesTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall loyola - Loyola Invitational | 1/8/22 |
0 - wiki errors, disclosure infoTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall here's a list of all the things i'll always disclose on my wiki - if u don't see them, that probably means that the wiki is broken/i forgot so pls contact me before u run disclosure! i'll open source the 1ac/1ar cards, rr, and cites will be first three last three for os, each underview i use for the round will just be in the os only since it's too much of a hassle to create a whole new cites box every time i have a diff underview | 1/8/22 |
1 - broken interpsTournament: triwizard tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: mister spoo | Judge: minnie mcgonagall | 1/8/22 |
jf - ac - kantTournament: blake | Round: 5 | Opponent: lexington bf | Judge: gordon krauss Blake R5Agents must be practical reasoners –~1~ Regress – we can always ask why we should follow a theory, so they aren’t binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it’s the only thing we can follow~2~ Action Theory – every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason~3~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW rct st~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. ~4~ Epistemology – ethics must begin a priori, meaning they can’t be derived from our experience.~A~ Representations of space – we can only access our experiences if we can interpret the space around us, but that requires the a priori. Thinking of the absence of space is impossible – we can think of empty space but never the lack of space itself. Imagining space through a priori thoughts is the only way we can even begin to have a conception of interpreting experience; we need to be able to construct space through our minds.~B~ Separateness – if space is based on experience, it must be formed from objects separate to us outside of our reasoning abilities. But to represent objects as separate from us, we would already need to assume space exists in the first place to have a concept of "separateness," so to represent space as something separate from us would be incoherent.~C~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can’t have a unified perspective on what is good if we each have different conceptions of it – even if we can roughly aggregate it’s not enough because there’ll always be a case when it fails so the framework o/w on probability.~D~ Is/Ought Gap – experience in the phenomenal world only tells us what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises within the noumenal world to make a moral theory.We have a unified perspective – If I say that 2+24, I understand not only that I know that 2+2=4, but that everyone around can arrive at the same conclusion too because they create practical syllogisms to justify their conclusion. But, willing a maxim that violates the freedom of others is a contradiction – that’s bad. ==== AND both the extension and the limitation of both their own and others’ freedom. Only a collective will that can have power over individuals can guarantee the enforcement of good maxims. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.To clarify, the framework does not value the ability to set any end, but rather the ability to decide which ends to pursue.Ripstein 1, (Arthur Ripstein, Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master’s degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20., 2009, accessed on 8-18-2020, Harvard University Press, "Force and Freedom",) NP 8/4/16. rct st AND to accept or decline your invita- tions is simply their right to independence Impact calc –~1~ Only the categorical imperative can motivate action – it’s external to wills of agents so it can obligate them all to follow certain rules – unilateral wills fail since they would involve one person coercing other people under their will and there would be no obligation to follow a person.~2~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally –~1~ Oppression is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that include everyone equally. Farr 02Farr, Arnold. Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative? 2002, blog.ufba.br/kant/files/2009/12/Can-a-Philosophy-of-Race-Afford-to-Abandon-the.pdf. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. ~2~ Performativity – Argumentation presupposes one’s own freedom to act – this means contestations of my framework prove it true. HoppeFrom the Economics of Laissez Faire to The Ethics of Libertarianism, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, The Ludwig von Mises Institute Auburn University AND as valid insofar as he is able to make his proposal at all. OffenseI defend "Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust." as a general principle.I’m willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn’t force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could’ve met them before the NC and abuse would’ve been solved. PICs don’t negate: a~ General principles don’t defend an absolute action, so they tolerate exceptions b~ Fails under my framework because they create arbitrary exceptions, which means it’s not universalizable.In outer space, there is no governing authority and thus claiming property imposes your will over others.Stilz 1 (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 AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. 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 AND of competing private interpretations that coer- cively struggle for the upper hand. | 12/19/21 |
jf - ac - kant v2Tournament: blake | Round: Octas | Opponent: valley rt | Judge: lawrence zhou, curtis chang, jeong-wan choi Blake OctasAgents must be practical reasoners –~1~ Regress – we can always ask why we should follow a theory, so they aren’t binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it’s the only thing we can follow~2~ Action Theory – every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason~3~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW rct st~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. ~4~ Epistemology – ethics must begin a priori, meaning they can’t be derived from our experience.~A~ Representations of space – we can only access our experiences if we can interpret the space around us, but that requires the a priori. Thinking of the absence of space is impossible – we can think of empty space but never the lack of space itself. Imagining space through a priori thoughts is the only way we can even begin to have a conception of interpreting experience; we need to be able to construct space through our minds.~B~ Separateness – if space is based on experience, it must be formed from objects separate to us outside of our reasoning abilities. But to represent objects as separate from us, we would already need to assume space exists in the first place to have a concept of "separateness," so to represent space as something separate from us would be incoherent.We have a unified perspective – If I say that 2+24, I understand not only that I know that 2+2=4, but that everyone around can arrive at the same conclusion too because they create practical syllogisms to justify their conclusion. But, willing a maxim that violates the freedom of others is a contradiction – that’s bad. ==== AND both the extension and the limitation of both their own and others’ freedom. Only a collective will that can have power over individuals can guarantee the enforcement of good maxims. Thus, the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will.To clarify, the framework does not value the ability to set any end, but rather the ability to decide which ends to pursue.Ripstein 1, (Arthur Ripstein, Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master’s degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20., 2009, accessed on 8-18-2020, Harvard University Press, "Force and Freedom",) NP 8/4/16. rct st AND to accept or decline your invita- tions is simply their right to independence Impact calc –~1~ Only the omnilateral will can motivate action – it’s external to wills of agents so it can obligate them all to follow certain rules – unilateral wills fail since they would involve one person coercing other people under their will and there would be no obligation to follow a person.~2~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjectivePrefer additionally –Oppression is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that include everyone equally. Farr 02Farr, Arnold. Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative? 2002, blog.ufba.br/kant/files/2009/12/Can-a-Philosophy-of-Race-Afford-to-Abandon-the.pdf. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. OffenseI defend "Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust." as a general principle.I’m willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn’t force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could’ve met them before the NC and abuse would’ve been solved. PICs don’t negate: a~ General principles don’t defend an absolute action, so they tolerate exceptions b~ Fails under my framework because they create arbitrary exceptions, which means it’s not universalizable.Property is an external right – it is something that we don’t innately have a right to by virtue of existing, but acquire once we exercise our freedom. However, this is impossible when there is no state to create property divisions.Stilz 1 (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 AND down, indeed, to what side of the road to drive on. In outer space, there is no governing authority and thus claiming property imposes your will over others.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 AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. In the state of nature, everyone is an equal arbitrator of justice – that makes rights violations impossible to resolve.Stilz 3 (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 AND of competing private interpretations that coer- cively struggle for the upper hand. | 12/20/21 |
jf - ac - virtueTournament: blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: lincoln east high jz | Judge: javier hernandez Blake R1 v Lincoln East ZBFirst, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – A. Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions. B. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an unvirtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not about how long you live but rather how you live.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:~1~ Constitutiveness – moral questions are derived from the life-form of a particular entity, which justifies following our true form. This outweighs – just as I would say a knife is bad if it is blunt, humans would be bad if they do not follow their true form. Any deontic theories are simply a deviation from our form. Foot:~Foot, Phillipa; "Natural Goodness"; Oxford University (2001)~ SHS ZS AND they do not teach their young the skills that they need to survive. ~2~ Subject transformation – Virtue ethics are key to fighting racism by accounting for the particularities in relationships and encourages transformation of character. O’Connell.~O’Connell, Maureen. "After White Supremacy? The Viability of Virtue Ethics for Racial Justice." Journal of Moral Theology. Published 2014~ SHS ZS AND their skin and recommitting ourselves to making dreams of racial equality a reality. OffenseI defend "Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust."I’m willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn’t force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could’ve met them before the NC and abuse would’ve been solved. PICs and CPs don’t negate – proving that we can do another virtuous action doesn’t mean we can’t do this one and one exception doesn’t disprove a statement like how penguins don’t disprove that birds fly.To endorse the appropriation of space is to endorse the orientations which make it necessary. If the endorsement of those conditions is morally wrong, then the appropriation of space subsidizes morally wrong attitudes.Sparrow, 1 (Robert Sparrow, Professor at Monash University; At the highest level of description my research interests are political philosophy and applied ethics; I am interested in philosophical arguments with real-world implications. More specifically, I am working in or have worked in: political philosophy, bioethics, environmental ethics, media ethics; just war theory; and the ethics of science and technology., 1999, accessed on 12-12-2021, Environmental Ethics 21, " Robert Sparrow, The ethics of terraforming - PhilPapers", https://philpapers.org/rec/SPATEO)~~bracketed for gen lang~phs st AND "agent-focused" and "agent-based: ethics.75 Regardless of the consequences, colonizing space fails to recognize the beauty of space which reveals aesthetic insensitivity.Sparrow, 2 (Robert Sparrow, Professor at Monash University; At the highest level of description my research interests are political philosophy and applied ethics; I am interested in philosophical arguments with real-world implications. More specifically, I am working in or have worked in: political philosophy, bioethics, environmental ethics, media ethics; just war theory; and the ethics of science and technology., 1999, accessed on 12-12-2021, Environmental Ethics 21, " Robert Sparrow, The ethics of terraforming - PhilPapers", https://philpapers.org/rec/SPATEO)~~bracketed for gen lang~phs st AND the world which make no reference to facts about humans at al1.18 Spacecol demonstrates hubris – to take control and appropriate space is to believe that you are above nature itself, which is arrogance.Sparrow, 3 (Robert Sparrow, Professor at Monash University; At the highest level of description my research interests are political philosophy and applied ethics; I am interested in philosophical arguments with real-world implications. More specifically, I am working in or have worked in: political philosophy, bioethics, environmental ethics, media ethics; just war theory; and the ethics of science and technology., 1999, accessed on 12-12-2021, Environmental Ethics 21, " Robert Sparrow, The ethics of terraforming - PhilPapers", https://philpapers.org/rec/SPATEO)~~bracketed for gen lang~phs st AND on Earth and the desire to colonize other planets is indicative of hubris. Commodifying nature strips value away from our form – the correct way to respond to nature is to conform to it instead of restructuring it to fit us. Space colonization is just a method to conquer more parts of nature.Lewis (C.S. Lewis, Clive Staples Lewis was a British writer and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University and Cambridge University., 1943, accessed on 12-12-2021, Samizdat.qc, "The Abolition of Man", http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/AbolitionofMan.pdf)~~bracketed for gen lang~phs st AND a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery. | 12/18/21 |
nd - ac - kantTournament: blue key | Round: 3 | Opponent: lake travis ma | Judge: sanjana bhatnagar Blue Key R3Agents must be practical reasoners –~1~ Regress – we can always ask why we should follow a theory, so they aren’t binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it’s the only thing we can follow~2~ Action Theory – every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason~3~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW rct st~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. ~4~ Epistemology – ethics must begin a priori, meaning they can’t be derived from our experience.~A~ Representations of space – we can only access our experiences if we can interpret the space around us, but that requires the a priori. Thinking of the absence of space is impossible – we can think of empty space but never the lack of space itself. Imagining space through a priori thoughts is the only way we can even begin to have a conception of interpreting experience; we need to be able to construct space through our minds.~B~ Separateness – if space is based on experience, it must be formed from objects separate to us outside of our reasoning abilities. But to represent objects as separate from us, we would already need to assume space exists in the first place to have a concept of "separateness," so to represent space as something separate from us would be incoherent.~C~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can’t have a unified perspective on what is good if we each have different conceptions of it – even if we can roughly aggregate it’s not enough because there’ll always be a case when it fails so the framework o/w on probability.We have a unified perspective – If I say that 2+24, I understand not only that I know that 2+2=4, but that everyone around can arrive at the same conclusion too because they create practical syllogisms to justify their conclusion. But, willing a maxim that violates the freedom of others is a contradiction – that’s bad. ==== AND both the extension and the limitation of both their own and others’ freedom. Only a collective will that can have power over individuals can guarantee the enforcement of good maxims. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.To clarify, the framework does not value the ability to set any end, but rather the ability to decide which ends to pursue.Ripstein 1, (Arthur Ripstein, Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master’s degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20., 2009, accessed on 8-18-2020, Harvard University Press, "Force and Freedom",) NP 8/4/16. rct st AND to accept or decline your invita- tions is simply their right to independence Impact calc –~1~ Only the categorical imperative can motivate action – it’s external to wills of agents so it can obligate them all to follow certain rules – unilateral wills fail since they would involve one person coercing other people under their will and there would be no obligation to follow a person.~2~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally –Oppression is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that include everyone equally. Farr 02Farr, Arnold. Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative? 2002, blog.ufba.br/kant/files/2009/12/Can-a-Philosophy-of-Race-Afford-to-Abandon-the.pdf. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. OffenseI defend "Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike." as a general principle.I’m willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn’t force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could’ve met them before the NC and abuse would’ve been solved. PICs and CPs don’t negate: a~ General principles don’t defend an absolute action, so they tolerate exceptions b~ Fails under my framework because they create arbitrary exceptions, which means it’s not universalizable.Not recognizing the right to strike is not universalizable – affirm:~1~ Respecting agents – the right to strike gives workers more power over their freedom and forces companies to respect their dignity.Gourevitch (Alex Gourevitch, Norman E. Bowie is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and of philosophy., June 2016, accessed on 10-4-2021, American Political Science Association, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049)st *brackets for grammar* AND notably in the 1935 law granting American workers the right to strike.55 ~2~ Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND against in the quest for equal rights for all in a democratic society. Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND ) or employees of public health services ~2,34-36~. ~3~ Bargaining Rights – because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "A Kantian Theory of Meaningful Work." Springer, 01 July 1998.~ LADI rct st AND addressed. Otherwise, industrial relations rests on an unethical foundation. The right to strike via unions corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective" Wiley Blackwell. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-063121173X.html~~ LADI rct st AND this requires a revision in my original account of meaningful work. | 10/30/21 |
nd - ac - kant v2Tournament: blue key | Round: 5 | Opponent: southlake carroll sd | Judge: blake ochoa Blue Key R5SyllogismAgents must be practical reasoners –~1~ Regress – we can always ask why we should follow a theory, so they aren’t binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it’s the only thing we can follow~2~ Action Theory – every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason~3~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW rct st~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. ~4~ Epistemology – ethics must begin a priori, meaning they can’t be derived from our experience.~A~ Representations of space – we can only access our experiences if we can interpret the space around us, but that requires the a priori. Thinking of the absence of space is impossible – we can think of empty space but never the lack of space itself. Imagining space through a priori thoughts is the only way we can even begin to have a conception of interpreting experience; we need to be able to construct space through our minds.~B~ Separateness – if space is based on experience, it must be formed from objects separate to us outside of our reasoning abilities. But to represent objects as separate from us, we would already need to assume space exists in the first place to have a concept of "separateness," so to represent space as something separate from us would be incoherent.~C~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can’t have a unified perspective on what is good if we each have different conceptions of it – even if we can roughly aggregate it’s not enough because there’ll always be a case when it fails so the framework o/w on probability.We have a unified perspective – If I say that 2+24, I understand not only that I know that 2+2=4, but that everyone around can arrive at the same conclusion too because they create practical syllogisms to justify their conclusion. But, willing a maxim that violates the freedom of others is a contradiction – that’s bad. ==== AND both the extension and the limitation of both their own and others’ freedom. Only a collective will that can have power over individuals can guarantee the enforcement of good maxims. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.To clarify, the framework does not value the ability to set any end, but rather the ability to decide which ends to pursue.Ripstein 1, (Arthur Ripstein, Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master’s degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20., 2009, accessed on 8-18-2020, Harvard University Press, "Force and Freedom",) NP 8/4/16. rct st AND to accept or decline your invita- tions is simply their right to independence Impact calc –~1~ Only the categorical imperative can motivate action – it’s external to wills of agents so it can obligate them all to follow certain rules – unilateral wills fail since they would involve one person coercing other people under their will and there would be no obligation to follow a person.~2~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally –~1~ Changes in the subject stem from practical reason: that means the core of the subject remains the same, it’s an internal link.Tiberius: ~Tiberius, Valerie. "Practical Reason and the Stability Standard." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3, Papers Presented to the Annual Conference of the British Society for Ethical Theory, Glasgow, 13-15 July 2001 (Sep. 2002), pp. 339-354. Springer~ brackets for clarity AND will be most stable in the future might very well be different.7 ~2~ Oppression is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that include everyone equally. Farr 02Farr, Arnold. Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative? 2002, blog.ufba.br/kant/files/2009/12/Can-a-Philosophy-of-Race-Afford-to-Abandon-the.pdf. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. OffenseI defend "Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike." as a general principle.I’m willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn’t force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could’ve met them before the NC and abuse would’ve been solved. PICs don’t negate: a~ General principles don’t defend an absolute action, so they tolerate exceptions b~ Fails under my framework because they create arbitrary exceptions, which means it’s not universalizable.Not recognizing the right to strike is not universalizable – affirm:~1~ Respecting agents – the right to strike gives workers more power over their freedom and forces companies to respect their dignity.Gourevitch (Alex Gourevitch, Norman E. Bowie is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and of philosophy., June 2016, accessed on 10-4-2021, American Political Science Association, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049)st *brackets for grammar* AND notably in the 1935 law granting American workers the right to strike.55 ~2~ Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND against in the quest for equal rights for all in a democratic society. Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND ) or employees of public health services ~2,34-36~. ~3~ Bargaining Rights – because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "A Kantian Theory of Meaningful Work." Springer, 01 July 1998.~ LADI rct st AND addressed. Otherwise, industrial relations rests on an unethical foundation. The right to strike via unions corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective" Wiley Blackwell. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-063121173X.html~~ LADI rct st AND none of this requires a revision in my original account of meaningful work. | 10/30/21 |
nd - ac - layTournament: blue key | Round: 2 | Opponent: nova cd | Judge: wyatt hatfield it was freedom based, similar to my septoct kant aff but more lay/a bit extempted so i'll just disclose the offense i ran that round since i made the fw more lay friendly Not recognizing the right to strike is not universalizable – affirm:~1~ Respecting agents – the right to strike gives workers more power over their freedom and forces companies to respect their dignity.Gourevitch (Alex Gourevitch, Norman E. Bowie is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and of philosophy., June 2016, accessed on 10-4-2021, American Political Science Association, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049)st *brackets for grammar* AND notably in the 1935 law granting American workers the right to strike.55 ~2~ Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND against in the quest for equal rights for all in a democratic society. Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) AND employees of public health services ~2,34-36~. | 10/29/21 |
so - ac - covidTournament: greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: strath haven am | Judge: nick fleming | 10/9/21 |
so - ac - kantTournament: bronx | Round: Quarters | Opponent: academy of classical christian studies jm | Judge: grant brown, silma bathily, fabrice etienne | 10/19/21 |
so - ac - virtueTournament: loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: saratoga ag | Judge: joey georges AC – VirtueFirst, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – A. Philosophy must frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I wouldn’t tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first, since they don’t have the disposition to follow it. B. The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – A. Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions. B. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there’s no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly. C. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an virtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework C) Character – virtues are a mindset to do the right thing so they must be realized, not forced. Agents must be able to cultivate their own virtues – if I force a person to never lie that won’t develop their character.~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not something that should be maximized all the time unconditionally, instead, agents should focus on developing a character that can use virtue appropriately.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:~1~ Actor spec – the state is created to facilitate virtuous development – anything else would hinder the development of the correct orientation of morality.Ingram, 13 (Andrew Ingram, South Texas College of Law, 2013, accessed on 8-22-2021, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, " Andrew Ingram, A (Moral) Prisoner's Dilemma: Character Ethics and Plea Bargaining - PhilArchive", https://philarchive.org/rec/INGAMP)//st AND more ~they~ will suffer from the dilemma the prosecutor has fashioned. ~2~ Education – Only a virtue ethicist methodology allows for teachers to cultivate epistemic virtues within their students which is necessary for true learning and allowing educators to achieve their true form. Carr.~Carr, David. "Virtue Ethics and Education." Oxford Handbooks Online. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199385195.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199385195-e-10?result=3andrskey=1fWPVQ. Published February 2018~ SHS ZS AND than any other science or discipline—into these distinctive relationships and passions. This outweighs on portability – only the aff provides us with a means of education and empowerment that we can use later in our lives to discover epistemic truth and learn.OffenseI defend "Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines."Reducing patents creates open-source communities – information held back by patents will be open to the public once there are less restrictions on it.Affirm –~1~ Excellence – to create a good scientific community, researchers must contribute their findings to allow others to research as well. Patents encourage greed and self-interest, which defeats the point of creating a virtuous community.Opderbeck, 1 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) st AND to the biotechnology research community, particularly concerning the allocation of research support. Human activities can be split into two categories: one activity where the end of it can be completed, like watering a plant, and one where the end, or internal goods, is fully present in the activity itself, like friendship. Internal goods must come first – otherwise after achieving an end there is no motivation to do further action.Opderbeck, 2 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law., 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/)//st AND excellence, as well as the capabilities of practitioners, rise over time. ~2~ Community – open-source practices foster the virtues of mutual sacrifice and cooperation by allowing people to participate and share.Opderbeck, 3 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) *bracketed for grammar*st AND , resources, and talent, which cumulate to a much larger good. | 10/9/21 |
so - ac - virtue v2Tournament: loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: kenston ej | Judge: wyatt hatfield AC - VirtueFirst, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – A. Philosophy must frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I wouldn’t tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first, since they don’t have the disposition to follow it. B. The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – A. Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions. B. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there’s no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly. C. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an unvirtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework C) Character – virtues are a mindset to do the right thing so they must be realized, not forced. Agents must be able to cultivate their own virtues – if I force a person to never lie that won’t develop their character.~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not something that should be maximized all the time unconditionally, instead, agents should focus on developing a character that can use virtue appropriately.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:Constitutiveness – moral questions are derived from the life-form of a particular entity, which justifies following our true form. This outweighs – just as I would say a knife is bad if it is blunt, humans would be bad if they do not follow their true form. Any deontic theories are simply a deviation from our form. Foot:~Foot, Phillipa; "Natural Goodness"; Oxford University (2001)~ SHS ZS AND excellences are similarly related to what human beings are and what they do. OffenseI defend "Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines."Reducing patents creates open-source communities – information held back by patents will be open to the public once there are less restrictions on it.Affirm –~1~ Excellence – to create a good scientific community, researchers must contribute their findings to allow others to research as well. Patents encourage greed and self-interest, which defeats the point of creating a virtuous community.Opderbeck, 1 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) st AND to the biotechnology research community, particularly concerning the allocation of research support. Human activities can be split into two categories: one activity where the end of it can be completed, like watering a plant, and one where the end, or internal goods, is fully present in the activity itself, like friendship. Internal goods must come first – otherwise after achieving an end there is no motivation to do further action.Opderbeck, 2 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law., 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/)//st AND excellence, as well as the capabilities of practitioners, rise over time. ~2~ Community – open-source practices foster the virtues of mutual sacrifice and cooperation by allowing people to participate and share.Opderbeck, 3 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) *bracketed for grammar*st AND , resources, and talent, which cumulate to a much larger good. | 10/9/21 |
so - ac - virtue v3Tournament: loyola | Round: 6 | Opponent: millard north yl | Judge: srey das AC – VirtueFirst, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – A. Philosophy must frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I wouldn’t tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first, since they don’t have the disposition to follow it. B. The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – A. Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions. B. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there’s no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly. C. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an unvirtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework C) Character – virtues are a mindset to do the right thing so they must be realized, not forced. Agents must be able to cultivate their own virtues – if I force a person to never lie that won’t develop their character.~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not something that should be maximized all the time unconditionally, instead, agents should focus on developing a character that can use virtue appropriately.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:~1~ Education – Only a virtue ethicist methodology allows for teachers to cultivate epistemic virtues within their students which is necessary for true learning and allowing educators to achieve their true form. Carr.~Carr, David. "Virtue Ethics and Education." Oxford Handbooks Online. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199385195.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199385195-e-10?result=3andrskey=1fWPVQ. Published February 2018~ SHS ZS AND than any other science or discipline—into these distinctive relationships and passions. ~2~ Hidden Supremacy – Only virtue ethics can account for degrees of white supremacy – other theories cannot resolve microaggressions and unintentional forms of racism that occur pre-consciously. O’Connel.~O’Connel, Maureen. "After White Supremacy? The Viability of Virtue Ethics for Racial Justice." Journal of Moral Theology. Published 2014~ SHS ZS AND dispositions and practices of whiteness on the biochemistry of the human brain.31 OffenseI defend "Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines."Reducing patents creates open-source communities – information held back by patents will be open to the public once there are less restrictions on it.Affirm –~1~ Excellence – to create a good scientific community, researchers must contribute their findings to allow others to research as well. Patents encourage greed and self-interest, which defeats the point of creating a virtuous community.Opderbeck, 1 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) st AND to the biotechnology research community, particularly concerning the allocation of research support. Human activities can be split into two categories: one activity where the end of it can be completed, like watering a plant, and one where the end, or internal goods, is fully present in the activity itself, like friendship. Internal goods must come first – otherwise after achieving an end there is no motivation to do further action.Opderbeck, 2 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law., 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/)//st AND excellence, as well as the capabilities of practitioners, rise over time. ~2~ Community – open-source practices foster the virtues of mutual sacrifice and cooperation by allowing people to participate and share.Opderbeck, 3 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) *bracketed for grammar*st AND , resources, and talent, which cumulate to a much larger good. | 10/9/21 |
so - ac - virtue v4Tournament: greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: harvard-westlake cc | Judge: truman le SyllogismFirst, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – A. Philosophy must frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I wouldn’t tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first, since they don’t have the disposition to follow it. B. The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – A. Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions. B. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there’s no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly. C. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an virtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework C) Character – virtues are a mindset to do the right thing so they must be realized, not forced. Agents must be able to cultivate their own virtues – if I force a person to never lie that won’t develop their character.~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not something that should be maximized all the time unconditionally, instead, agents should focus on developing a character that can use virtue appropriately.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:Actor spec – the state is created to facilitate virtuous development – anything else would hinder the development of the correct orientation of morality.Ingram, 13 (Andrew Ingram, South Texas College of Law, 2013, accessed on 8-22-2021, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, " Andrew Ingram, A (Moral) Prisoner's Dilemma: Character Ethics and Plea Bargaining - PhilArchive", https://philarchive.org/rec/INGAMP)//st AND more ~they~ will suffer from the dilemma the prosecutor has fashioned. OffenseI defend "Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" as a general principle – pics don’t negate because virtuous rules allow for exceptions.The point of the debate is to prove the truth and falsity of the res, k2 phil ed, infinite number of potential things that you can introduceReducing patents creates open-source communities – information held back by patents will be open to the public once there are less restrictions on it.Affirm –~1~ Excellence – to create a good scientific community, researchers must contribute their findings to allow others to research as well. Patents encourage greed and self-interest, which defeats the point of creating a virtuous community.Opderbeck, 1 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) st AND to the biotechnology research community, particularly concerning the allocation of research support. Human activities can be split into two categories: one activity where the end of it can be completed, like watering a plant, and one where the end, or internal goods, is fully present in the activity itself, like friendship. Internal goods must come first – otherwise after achieving an end there is no motivation to do further action.Opderbeck, 2 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law., 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/)//st AND excellence, as well as the capabilities of practitioners, rise over time. ~2~ Community – open-source practices foster the virtues of mutual sacrifice and cooperation by allowing people to participate and share.Opderbeck, 3 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) *bracketed for grammar*st AND , resources, and talent, which cumulate to a much larger good. | 10/9/21 |
so - ac - virtue v5Tournament: nano nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: harker gs | Judge: sai karavadi First, ethics are split between the deontic and aretaic. Deontic theories answer what agents should do according to a moral code, while aretaic theories answer what kind of agent people should be to make the right decisions.Gryz, 1 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND a moral theory; the ‘good’ is used to express moral judgments. To clarify, deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Hijacks – Every action in the deontic can be expressed in the aretaic, but only the aretaic can break free of the right/wrong binary with its richer vocabulary.Gryz, 2 (Jarek Gryz, Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies., 12-15-2010, accessed on 8-21-2021, Springer, "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic", DOI 10.1007/s10677-010-9258-3)st AND attractive ethical theories seem to be much better off than the imperative ones. ~2~ Collapses – A. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. B. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property.~3~ Prerequisite – The origin of philosophy had to start through an aretaic paradigm since there were no preconceived notions or rules that we needed a guide towards the good; they chose to develop the good out of their own volition; without the aretaic there’d be no reason to do good things unless we wanted to become better people.~4~ The deontic fails – Moral laws are socially constructed and dependent upon the places and conditions where they will be in use which means they are subjective and fail; moral law can’t account for every single situation, but virtue solves and is more flexible since good agents will do good actions.Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm. Instead of prescribing normative claims to action, virtue focuses on developing agents to make them virtuous.Reader, (Soran Reader, Soran Reader is Lecturer in Philosophy at Durham University and is editor of The Philosophy of Need (Cambridge University Press, 2006)., December 2000, accessed on 8-22-2021, Springer, "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue."", http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504153)//st AND insight to moral philosophy; its import has yet fully to be appreciated. The standard is consistency with the cultivation of virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ There is a distinction between procedural and substantive actions. Procedural actions allow agents to engage under the framework to practice virtue while substantive offense is an unvirtuous action. Procedural offense comes first since A) Prereq – if it’s impossible to engage in the framework it’s impossible to generate a substantive ethical conclusion from it B) Magnitude – being incapable of generating ethical principles is an intrinsic wrong that infinitely violates all the ethical decisions that you would have made under the framework~2~ Not consequentialist – Consequences only evaluate the direct consequences of the action but not the way that it affects someone’s moral character. Virtues aren’t end goods like pain and pleasure – it’s not something that should be maximized all the time unconditionally, instead, agents should focus on developing a character that can use virtue appropriately.~3~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that’s circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can’t quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can’t universalize that and say it’s good – it’s impossible to measure something that’s completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it’s impossible to assign obligations since you can’t pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally:Hidden Supremacy – Only virtue ethics can account for degrees of white supremacy – other theories cannot resolve microaggressions and unintentional forms of racism that occur pre-consciously. O’Connel.~O’Connel, Maureen. "After White Supremacy? The Viability of Virtue Ethics for Racial Justice." Journal of Moral Theology. Published 2014~ SHS ZS AND dispositions and practices of whiteness on the biochemistry of the human brain.31 I defend "Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" - pics and cps don’t negate because virtuous rules allow for exceptions and proving that you can be virtuous in another way doesn’t disprove that you can be virtuous in this way. I’ll specify any definition you want as long as I don’t have to abandon my maxim which solves for tReducing patents creates open-source communities – information held back by patents will be open to the public once there are less restrictions on it.Affirm –~1~ Excellence – to create a good scientific community, researchers must contribute their findings to allow others to research as well. Patents encourage greed and self-interest, which defeats the point of creating a virtuous community.Opderbeck, 1 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) st AND to the biotechnology research community, particularly concerning the allocation of research support. Human activities can be split into two categories: one activity where the end of it can be completed, like watering a plant, and one where the end, or internal goods, is fully present in the activity itself, like friendship. Internal goods must come first – otherwise after achieving an end there is no motivation to do further action.Opderbeck, 2 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law., 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/)//st AND excellence, as well as the capabilities of practitioners, rise over time. ~2~ Community – open-source practices foster the virtues of mutual sacrifice and cooperation by allowing people to participate and share.Opderbeck, 3 (David Opderbeck is Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law, 11-2-2017, accessed on 8-11-2021, University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)", https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/) *bracketed for grammar*st AND , resources, and talent, which cumulate to a much larger good. | 10/9/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/5/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
1/11/22 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
12/19/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
12/20/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
12/20/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/29/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/5/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/17/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
1/13/22 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
1/14/22 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/10/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/13/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/14/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
11/14/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sophia1tian@gmailcom |
|