San Mateo Sarver Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longhorn | 2 | Pranav Medikonduru | Breigh Plat |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn | 3 | Rohith Siddabattula | Isaac Chao |
|
|
| |
| meadows | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Longhorn | 2 | Opponent: Pranav Medikonduru | Judge: Breigh Plat berardi |
| Longhorn | 3 | Opponent: Rohith Siddabattula | Judge: Isaac Chao lay |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Contact infoTournament: meadows | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA My name is Zach! Email: zacharybsarver@gmail.com Have fun debating! | 10/30/21 |
ND - Berardi ACTournament: Longhorn | Round: 2 | Opponent: Pranav Medikonduru | Judge: Breigh Plat AND if they are able to share the same refrain, as Guattari would say Digitalized labor requires uniform compliance with Semiocapitalist structures. Workers are reduced to an easily replaceable unit of time; their dehumanization and lack of commonality renders organization, and therefore recombination, impossible AND implies a technological mutation but also a psychic mutation of the living mind. The structure of Semiocapitalism drives all action and prevents recomposition. Society’s inability to recompose means that people cannot be actors; they don’t have the ability to make change AND but is a kind of unavoidable catastrophe that we cannot oppose in any way Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best resists semiocapitalism. Prefer for three reasons: 1) Capitalist digitilization skews our concept of time and renders previous conceptions of progressive change meaningless. The only coherent evaluation of the past or the future must be first achieved through dismantling semiocapitalism AND oriented civilization because the limits of human knowability and controllability have been surpassed. 2) Liberal democracy has failed- any conception of change must be spearheaded with combatting semiocapitalism; dismantling semiocapitalism is a prerequisite to making change AND is a continuous proximity in time that info-labor no longer allows. 3) Semiocapitalism has destroyed the education system and pedagogical spaces like debate are uniquely equipped to combatting semiocapitalism’s grasp on learning and information. Behind all published works is a profit motive. AND institution for the re-activation of autonomy of knowledge from economic dogma. Contention I affirm the resolution Resolved: a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. A just government is definitionally one that is not semiocapitalist, and affording workers an unconditional right to strike is crucial to allow for any form of recombination of society History proves- strong labor unions in the 20th century were the forefront of change and resistance to oppressive forces. In our current semiocapitalist economy, recognizing the unconditional right of strike rectifies this difference and puts power back in the hands of workers AND phone calls the workers to reconnect their abstract time to the reticular flux. | 12/4/21 |
ND - Contracts NCTournament: Longhorn | Round: 3 | Opponent: Rohith Siddabattula | Judge: Isaac Chao Motivation must be the starting point of ethics since any normative ethical framework assumes that people will actually follow it. Motivation is the only thing that leads to action Externalism collapses to internalism: 1) External reason can’t explain action, it must be consistent with an internal desire AND - but in that case the putative external reason collapses into an internal one 2) Externalist theories can’t explain differences in motivation between individuals. Internalism shows how motivation is caused by internal desires that cannot be reduced to an external theory AND motivated by genuine normative reasons (or even that some of us are). 3) Externalism fails because agents only follow external demands that are consistent with their beliefs. For example, citizens only follow the law when it correlates with their desire-people ignore laws by speeding on a highway when they desire to and slow down for a cop when they desire to not get a ticket. Internal desire is what motivates action. Next, only a contractarian system that derives principles of mutual restraint from individuals’ self-interest accounts for internal desire because contractarian principles are in the interest of all parties involved AND for mutual constraint, and so for a moral dimension in their affairs. We are not consequentialist- consequences are good and bad only within the context of individual desires and contracts of mutual self-restraint. No consequences are intrinsically good or bad Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarian principles of mutual restraint, defined as principles by which individuals constrain their actions with the belief that doing so would serve their self-interest. Prefer the standard: 1) Contractarianism is based on consent through acceptance of a contract, which ultimately determines what qualifies as a net good or harm. Their framework forces conceptions of good and bad upon individuals through external means. 2) Infinite Regress- Asking external authorities begs the question of why their conception of the good is correct and should be preferred. Contractarianism avoids this by allowing individuals to construct conceptions of the good based on a rational restriction of their future actions. 3) Both debaters debate to win the round but we are still restricted by mutually agreed upon constraints like 4 mins of prep, speech times, etc. Their very performance justifies the NC framework and proves the AC collapses to the NC. Now negate: 1) Employees and their employers have formed an explicit contract that unifies the motivations of both the employee and the employer. Strikes are violating this by not upholding their agreement to work, which is intrinsically bad. 2) Strikes themselves inhibit the ability to make contracts- unions force noncompliance with contracts and restrict the creation of new ones. AND point out, majorities within a union are able to ignore minorities’ preferences. | 12/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
12/4/21 | zacharybsarver@gmailcom |
|