San Mateo Sarver Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longhorn | 1 | Northland Christian LB | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn | 3 | Rohith Siddabattula | Isaac Chao |
|
|
| |
| Meadows | 1 | all | all |
|
| ||
| Meadows | 2 | one of them | one of them |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Longhorn | 1 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Devin Hernandez Soft Power Innovation Democracy |
| Longhorn | 3 | Opponent: Rohith Siddabattula | Judge: Isaac Chao lay |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
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 |
ND - Security KTournament: Longhorn | Round: 1 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Devin Hernandez AND means for the future of the “Special Relationship” is anyone’s guess. The aff’s security rhetoric and discourse reverses this, reifying security logic and manifesting into hegemonic state policies that transform political action. They’ll ask for lines in the aff, so here’s a bunch: “U.S. benevolent hegemony” “critical to preventing global authoritarianism” “a plethora of existential threats” “America is at a tipping point” AND , security policies recreate the interests and the attributes of the state itself. The impact is an inevitable cycle of violence and war. Security logic results in an insatiable feeling of insecurity that leads us to perpetuate conflict in a never-ending quest for “safety” AND suffering. The national insecurity state affords no prospect beyond death and suffering. Empirics prove- the war in Iraq was manufactured by the same rhetoric present in the aff AND this information was complete or they did not care if it was incomplete. The alt is to reject the aff in favor of a deconstruction of their threat construction. This dismantles the threats of the 1ac and the military industrial complex’s hold on imagination. AND a lasting solution to problems can be, or has been, reached. | 12/4/21 |
so - cap kTournament: Meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all AND be measured by its desperate embracing of Spinoza as an exemplary "materialist"! The impact is that capitalism renders life meaningless because it only cares about profit in order to reproduce itself. Only class consciousness and dialectic analysis can explain the root cause of all other oppression. AND a viable alternative to capitalism be more meaningful than the participation in it?” The alt is intersectional, dialectic class conscious revolt. Only communal resistance with a will towards a common goal will exhaust the capitalist system that works by placating individuals with self expression and celebration of difference AND to talk about the party should not talk about political transformation. The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best engages in acts of comradery. Only collective action can solve for the harms of capitalism and resolve the Left AND modes of association in the abstract. Communists must do this as well.” | 12/3/21 |
so - innovation daTournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: one of them | Judge: one of them Strong current IP guarantees causes massive Pharma innovation. AND there—has produced nowhere near a similar level of novel biomedical innovation. Reducing IP protections chills future investment – even the perception of wavering commitment scares off companies. AND (accounting for 36 percent of all university patent awards in 2012). 13 RandD’s key to innovation – otherwise, future pandemics. AND such public health threats to an even greater extent under improved innovation conditions. Evolving superbugs trigger extinction. AND most of the medical advances we have made over the past fifty years. | 12/3/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
12/4/21 | zacharybsarver@gmailcom |
| |
12/3/21 | zacharybsarver@gmailcom |
| |
12/3/21 | zacharybsarver@gmailcom |
|