Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: Austin Broussard
Permissibility and Presumption negate:
1 Obligations – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation – burden of proof proves
2 Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.
3 Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false:
1 Constitutivism: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution
A Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity
B the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It’s a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game.
2 Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is true that I am awake” which means they are also a question of truth claims because it’s inherent
Ethics must begin a priori:
1 Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive 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 to make a moral theory.
2 Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible.
3 Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.
4 Transcendental Idealism – what we see is not what is, but our representations of reality – only a priori knowledge is a lane to truth as perception is the lane to truth insofar as a lack of the subject removes material constitution and abstracts sensibility as it is then unknown.
Next, reason implies universalizability –
1 Anytime you act, you acknowledge the value of your agency, because otherwise you wouldn’t be exercising it. However, agency is not unique to you – if your agency is valuable, then so is everyone else’s. Therefore, its logically incoherent to pursue a course of action that violates the agency of another, because you wouldn’t have acted if agency wasn’t valuable. Thus, actions must be universalizable.
2 A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience i.e. 2+2=4 must be true for everyone
Prefer:
1 Performativity – All arguments appeal to reason; otherwise you concede they have no warrant to structure them and are definitionally baseless. Thus, reason is an epistemic constraint on evaluating neg arguments.
2 Performativity – arguing against freedom requires that you be free to argue, so attacks on my framework prove its legitimacy.
3 All other frameworks collapse – non-Korsgaardian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.
4 Resource Disparities - A focus on evidence and statistics rewards debaters with the most preround prep which increases the disparity between lone-wolfs and big schools with huge evidence files. A Kantian debate resolves this because it can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. This is also means you should prefer Kant debates because don’t have a side skew from empirical topic literature. Key to fairness since it equalizes the playing field.
5 Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under interpretation of Kantianism: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag. Resolvability is an independent voter since otherwise the judge can’t make a decision.====
3 Violates non-contradiction – nobody would create. Van Dyke 18
Raymond Van Dyke (Technology and Intellectual Property Attorney, Patent Practitioner, Van Dyke Intellectual Property Law), 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/, SLC West HZ
As we shall see, applying Kantian logic entails first
AND
thwarted (or at least not encouraged) and trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust.
4 Violates both humanity and non-contradiction – in stealing, you ignore others’ will to property and if everyone stole, there would be no property. Yes, IP is property. Zeidman and Gupta 16
Bob Zeidman (Bob Zeidman is one of the leading experts on intellectual property, particularly as it relates to software. He is the president and founder of Zeidman Consulting, a premier contract research and development firm in Silicon Valley that focuses on engineering consulting to law firms about intellectual property disputes. Clients have included Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Intel, Symantec, Texas Instruments, and Zynga. Bob is also the president and founder of Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering Corporation, the leading provider of software intellectual property analysis tools for use in forensic examinations. Bob is considered a pioneer in the fields of analyzing and synthesizing software source code. He has worked on and testified in over 200 cases involving billions of dollars in disputed IP) and Eashan Gupta (Eashan Gupta is a junior at Basis Independent High School in San Jose, California. He is part of his school's Mock Trial team as an attorney and a witness, where he was recognized by Santa Clara County for outstanding performance. Eashan was the news editor for his school newspaper. In his free time, Eashan competes in fencing tournaments around the country, along with being a fencing referee. During the summer of 2015, he worked as an intern at the Federal Bankruptcy Court in San Jose), 1-5-2016, "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/, SLC West HZ
Many libertarians believe that intellectual property, being intangible, is not
AND
or they may lose their contrary argument that private conversations are personal property to be protected.