Scarsdale Huang Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Triples | Harker AS | Panel |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | Rosemount CP | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Southlake Carroll SD | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Valley MM | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| Capitalism RR | Semis | Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | Immanuel Kant |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Byram Hills EW | Isabella Nadel |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Loyola LR | Cyrus Jackson |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Lexington AT | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Iowa City West JS | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | OES CM | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Triples | Opponent: Harker AS | Judge: Panel 1ac - Virtuous Freedom |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Rosemount CP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1ac - Virtuous Freedom |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1ac - Virtuous Freedom |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Valley MM | Judge: Joey Georges 1ac - Virtuous Freedom |
| Capitalism RR | Semis | Opponent: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | Judge: Immanuel Kant no |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Isabella Nadel 1ac - Universal Freedom |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Loyola LR | Judge: Cyrus Jackson 1ac - Universal Freedom |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 1ac - Universal Freedom |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Joey Georges 1ac - Universal Freedom |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | Opponent: OES CM | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1ac - Semiotic Freedom (beef o) |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Capitalism RR | Round: Semis | Opponent: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | Judge: Immanuel Kant Also - please if possible put a space between each subpoint of an analytic it makes it so much easier to read e.g. a its incoherent b he is not kant c he is not theory 2 the cap k sux a its not kant etc etc | 11/13/21 |
G - Theory - Broken InterpsTournament: Capitalism RR | Round: Semis | Opponent: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | Judge: Immanuel Kant All of these r extemped because i dont do prepBronx R2: the negative debater must not read multiple theory shells in the 1nc. Standards were time skew, reciprocity, topic ed. | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Virtuous FreedomTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Jalyn Wu 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. 2 Collapses – A. Engaging in ethics concedes to the authority of attempting to become a better person, which is an aretaic quality. B. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. C. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property. Thus the standard is cultivating virtue. 2 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: Offense Ethical communities are key to acting virtuously – means my offense procedurally outweighs. Underview 2 Fairness is a voter a) all argumentation presupposes fairness – i.e. that the judge won't hack for either side b) judges cannot evaluate the round properly if it is skewed | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Virtuous Freedom V2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Valley MM | Judge: Joey Georges I value morality.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 11 ~Jarek, professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies. "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic" Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. November 2011, Issue 5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257560765_On_the_Relationship_Between_the_Aretaic_and_the_Deontic~~ SHS ZS recut 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) SHS ZS recut ~2~ Collapses – A. Engaging in ethics concedes to the authority of attempting to become a better person, which is an aretaic quality. B. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. C. 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 has to frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I would not tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first. 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. C. Absent the aretaic, there would be no reason to care about the morality of our actions without it being grounded in trying to become a better person.~4~ Motivation – A. The aretaic improves citizens' moral standing. People can always opt-out of a deontic theory but by focusing on the aretaic we improve the moral character of citizens, causing them to act ethically out of their own volition. B. There is a distinction between how one deliberates in everyday life – I would not think about the categorical imperative when I am deciding whether to walk or bike to school. Only virtue solves since good actions will naturally stem from virtues.~5~ The deontic fails – A. It's impossible for a moral law to account for every single situation; there will always be cases in which the rule fails B. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues C. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there's no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly D. 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; virtues solves and is more flexible~6~ Consequences fail – Ethical theories have to always guide action. Even if they work 99 of the time that is not sufficient because there would be instances where agents do not know what to do. A. Induction fails – the logic of looking to the past to predict the future is all premised in the past, so it's circular. B. Aggregation fails – there's no way to weigh between different forms of pain and pleasure. C. Butterfly effect – no way to know when we cut off looking at consequences. D. Culpability – there are an infinite number of pretenses for actions which means assigning culpability is impossible which is necessary for a moral theory to ascribe blame for 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 2k ~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~~ SHS DH Thus the standard is cultivating virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ The framework is procedural – it is concerned with cultivating virtuous agents, not being consistent with a virtuous action because that is deontic and fails.~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.Prefer additionally:~1~ 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 ~2~ 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) Brackets and ellipses in original text.~ SHS DH OffenseI affirm – Resolved: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike for all strikes. I'm willing to spec anything in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Affirm:Strikes are key to fostering an ethical community that values mutual sacrifice and risk taking, new friendships, and is courageous.LaborNotes 19 ~Labor Notes. October 17, 2019. "Why Strikes Matter". 10-17-2019. https://www.labornotes.org/2019/10/why-strikes-matter. Accessed 11-5-2021~ SHS DH Ethical communities are key to acting virtuously – means my offense procedurally outweighs.Markulla 98 ~"Ethics and Virtue." Markkula Center. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/. Published 1988~ SHS ZSAt the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of Underview~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory – It's key to check neg abuse, no 1AR theory means neg can be infinitely abusive because nothing can stop them, which outweighs because it means aff can't win. Drop the debater on 1AR theory because the aff can't split the 2ar between both theory and substance. No neg RVIs since the neg can dump on the shell for 6 minutes and make the 2AR impossible.Competing interpretations because reasonability collapses – you have to win offense to your justification which concedes the validity of the theory. 1AR Theory before neg theory – a) the neg can win their shell in the long 2nr but it's impossible for the aff to beat the shell back in the 2ar b) key to check back against abusive neg strategies. ==== ~2~ Fairness is a voter a) all argumentation presupposes fairness – i.e. that the judge won't hack for either side b) judges cannot evaluate the round properly if it is skewed~3~ Permissibility affirms a) Conditional logic: If a system of morals must be applicable to every agent in order to label actions as morally permissible, it results in the conditional statement, "If a system of morals exists then voting ought to be compulsory." Skep denies the antecedent, and in conditional logic , statements with false antecedents always have true consequents, thus resolution is permissible, which means skep affirms. B) Law of Excluded Middle: Moral systems that don't or can't assign permissibility or impermissibility to actions are incomplete guides to action. If permissibility is true, then there cannot be prohibitions. Without prohibitions, there's no reason to negate, so affirm. | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Virtuous Freedom V3Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Rosemount CP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki ACI value morality.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 11 ~Jarek, professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies. "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic" Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. November 2011, Issue 5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257560765_On_the_Relationship_Between_the_Aretaic_and_the_Deontic~~ SHS ZS recut 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) SHS ZS recut ~2~ Collapses – A. Engaging in ethics concedes to the authority of attempting to become a better person, which is an aretaic quality. B. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories. C. 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 has to frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I would not tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first. 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. C. Absent the aretaic, there would be no reason to care about the morality of our actions without it being grounded in trying to become a better person.~4~ Motivation – The aretaic improves citizens' moral standing. People can always opt-out of a deontic theory but by focusing on the aretaic we improve the moral character of citizens, causing them to act ethically out of their own volition.~5~ Consequences fail – Ethical theories have to always guide action. Even if they work 99 of the time that is not sufficient because there would be instances where agents do not know what to do. A. Induction fails – the logic of looking to the past to predict the future is all premised in the past, so it's circular. B. Aggregation fails – there's no way to weigh between different forms of pain and pleasure. C. Butterfly effect – no way to know when we cut off looking at consequences. D. Culpability – there are an infinite number of pretenses for actions which means assigning culpability is impossible which is necessary for a moral theory to ascribe blame for actions.~6~ The deontic fails – A. It's impossible for a moral law to account for every single situation; there will always be cases in which the rule fails B. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues C. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there's no way to hold people accountable for following them correctlyNext, 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 2k ~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~~ SHS DH Thus the standard is cultivating virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ The framework is procedural – it is concerned with cultivating virtuous agents, not being consistent with a virtuous action because that is deontic and fails.~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.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) Brackets and ellipses in original text.~ SHS DH OffenseI affirm – Resolved: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike for all strikes. I'm willing to spec anything in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Affirm:Strikes are key to fostering an ethical community that values mutual sacrifice and risk taking, new friendships, and is courageous.LaborNotes 19 ~Labor Notes. October 17, 2019. "Why Strikes Matter". 10-17-2019. https://www.labornotes.org/2019/10/why-strikes-matter. Accessed 11-5-2021~ SHS DH Ethical communities are key to acting virtuously – means my offense procedurally outweighs.Markulla 98 ~"Ethics and Virtue." Markkula Center. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/. Published 1988~ SHS ZSAt the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of "community". A person's character traits are not developed in isolation, but within and by the communities to which he or she belongs, including family, church, school, and other private and public associations. As people grow and mature, their personalities are deeply affected by the values that their communities prize, by the personality traits that their communities encourage, and by the role models that their communities put forth for imitation through traditional stories, fiction, movies, television, and so on. The virtue approach urges us to pay attention to the contours of our communities and the habits of character they encourage and instill. The moral life, then, is not simply a matter of following moral rules and of learning to apply them to specific situations. The moral life is also a matter of trying to determine the kind of people we should be and of attending to the development of character within our communities and ourselves. UV~1~ Utilitarianism fails – multiple warrants.Cleveland ~Cleveland, Paul A. "The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy." Independent Institute. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1602. Published 1 September 2002~ | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Virtuous Freedom V4Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harker AS | Judge: Panel I value morality.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 11 ~Jarek, professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, Research Faculty Fellow at Center for Advanced Studies. "On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic" Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. November 2011, Issue 5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257560765_On_the_Relationship_Between_the_Aretaic_and_the_Deontic~~ SHS ZS recut 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) SHS ZS recut ~2~ Prerequisite – A. Philosophy has to frame who we are as individuals before dictating how we should act; I would not tell a serial killer to follow the categorical imperative but try to reform their character first. B. Absent the aretaic, there would be no reason to care about the morality of our actions without it being grounded in trying to become a better person. C. 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.~3~ Motivation – A. There is a distinction between how one deliberates in everyday life – I would not think about the categorical imperative when I am deciding whether to walk or bike to school. Only virtue solves since good actions will naturally stem from virtues. B. The aretaic improves citizens' moral standing. People can always opt-out of a deontic theory but by focusing on the aretaic we improve the moral character of citizens, causing them to act ethically out of their own volition.~4~ Collapses – A. Infinite regress – we can always ask why to follow a deontic rule, but the answer will terminate in attempting to achieve some aretaic property. B. Engaging in ethics concedes to the authority of attempting to become a better person, which is an aretaic quality. C. If agents were conditioned properly, they would independently take the right actions, which hijacks deontic theories.~5~ The deontic fails – A. Fails to account for differences in cultures or norms, the aretaic solves by allowing people to determine and weigh between their own virtues B. 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; virtues solves and is more flexible C. Moral laws can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and there's no way to hold people accountable for following them correctly D. It's imp006Fssible for a moral law to account for every single situation; there will always be cases in which the rule fails~6~ Consequences fail – Ethical theories have to always guide action. Even if they work 99 of the time that is not sufficient because there would be instances where agents do not know what to do. A. Butterfly effect – no way to know when we cut off looking at consequences. B. Culpability – there are an infinite number of pretenses for actions which means assigning culpability is impossible which is necessary for a moral theory to ascribe blame for actions. C. Induction fails – the logic of looking to the past to predict the future is all premised in the past, so it's circular. D. Aggregation fails – there's no way to weigh between different forms of pain and pleasure.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 2k ~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~~ SHS DH Thus the standard is cultivating virtue.Impact Calc –~1~ The framework is procedural – it is concerned with cultivating virtuous agents, not being consistent with a virtuous action because that is deontic and fails.~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.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) Brackets and ellipses in original text.~ SHS DH OffenseI affirm – Resolved: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike for all strikes. I'm willing to spec anything in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Affirm:Strikes are key to fostering an ethical community that values mutual sacrifice and risk taking, new friendships, and is courageous.LaborNotes 19 ~Labor Notes. October 17, 2019. "Why Strikes Matter". 10-17-2019. https://www.labornotes.org/2019/10/why-strikes-matter. Accessed 11-5-2021~ SHS DH Ethical communities are key to acting virtuously – means my offense procedurally outweighs.Markulla 98 ~"Ethics and Virtue." Markkula Center. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/. Published 1988~ SHS ZSAt the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of "community". A person's character traits are not developed in isolation, but within and by the communities to which he or she belongs, including family, church, school, and other private and public associations. As people grow and mature, their personalities are deeply affected by the values that their communities prize, by the personality traits that their communities encourage, and by the role models that their communities put forth for imitation through traditional stories, fiction, movies, television, and so on. The virtue approach urges us to pay attention to the contours of our communities and the habits of character they encourage and instill. The moral life, then, is not simply a matter of following moral rules and of learning to apply them to specific situations. The moral life is also a matter of trying to determine the kind of people we should be and of attending to the development of character within our communities and ourselves. Underview~1~ Utilitarianism fails.Cleveland ~Cleveland, Paul A. "The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy." Independent Institute. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1602. Published 1 September 2002~ ~2~ Aff gets 1AR theory – It's key to check neg abuse, no 1AR theory means neg can be infinitely abusive because nothing can stop them, which outweighs because it means aff can't win. Drop the debater on 1AR theory because the aff can't split the 2ar between both theory and substance. No neg RVIs since the neg can dump on the shell for 6 minutes and make the 2AR impossible. Competing interpretations because reasonability collapses – you have to win offense to your justification which concedes the validity of the theory. 1AR Theory before neg theory – a) the neg can win their shell in the long 2nr but it's impossible for the aff to beat the shell back in the 2ar b) key to check back against abusive neg strategies. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - AC - Semiotic FreedomTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: OES CM | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Capitalism has moved onto a new stage. Rather than focusing on material objects of value, the next hot thing is information in the form of signifiers. Signifiers are things that describe something, but not necessarily reality, and information is cycled through corporations, just like the brain. Unlike previous ages, industrialization places an emphasis on intelligence and information production as compared to fordist capitalism which requires only physical labor.Berardi 1 Precarious Rhapsody Semiocapitalism and the pathologies of the post-alpha generation Franco "Bifo" Berardi ISBN 978-1-57027-207-3 Edited by Erik Empson and Stevphen Shukaitis Translated by Arianna Bove, Erik Empson, Michael Goddard, Giuseppina Mecchia, Antonella Schintu, and Steve Wright Minor Compositions London 2009sjvc but me recut it Semiocapitalism forces us to become workers taking the subway – emptied and tired from information we are bombared with, we become disconnected from reality and our brains become restructured. This is exhaustion – it destroys the subject and eliminates possibilities for any empathy or connection. Think of Tik Tok – endless videos of semiocapital wherein a saturation causes a disconnect from reality and an inability to process what is real and what is not.Berardi 2 Berardi, Franco (2011) After the Future. Edinburgh: AK Press. /SHS DH Thus the standard and the role of the ballot is to resist semiocapitalism. Prefer:~1~ Education has been coopted by semiocap since there is no more meaningful information.Carlin and Wallin 1 ~Carlin, Matthew. Wallin, Jason. "Deleuze and Guattari, Politics and Education." Bloomsbury. 2014.~ SHS DH ~2~ The human subject cannot keep up with the speed of semiocapitalism – Exhaustion destroys our receivers and our value to live and reduces the power to movements. Outweighs everything since it requires a subject to process any conception of the good.Berardi 3 Precarious Rhapsody Semiocapitalism and the pathologies of the post-alpha generation Franco "Bifo" Berardi ISBN 978-1-57027-207-3 Edited by Erik Empson and Stevphen Shukaitis Translated by Arianna Bove, Erik Empson, Michael Goddard, Giuseppina Mecchia, Antonella Schintu, and Steve Wright Minor Compositions London 2009sjvc ContentionI affirm the resolution as a general principle- Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. CPs and pics don't negate this since it is just an exception and doesn't deny the goodness of the aff. I'll change my advocacy within reason as long as I don't abandon my maxim, and check all interps in cx or else assume I-meet.Affirm:~1~ Intellectual property is rooted in semiocapitalism – it appropriates intellectual labor and information into semiocapital which marks a shift towards immaterial capital.Lemmens 21 ~Lemmens, P. (n.d.). The conditions of the Common. A Stieglerian critique ON Hardt AND Negri's thesis on Cognitive capitalism as a prefiguration of communism. The_Conditions_of_the_Common_A_Stieglerian_Critique_on_Hardt_and_Negri_s_Thesis_on_Cognitive_Capitalism_as_a_Prefiguration_of_Communism~ AS ~2~ Especially for medical patentsAmin 20 ~Tahir Amin. . "We Need to Take On Drug Companies' Abuse of the Patent System". 12-18-2020. No Publication. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/12/pharmeceutical-industry-patent-system-antitrust-law. Accessed 8-11-2021~ SHS DH ~3~ Our orientation towards intellectual property reproduces the logic of accumulation. Behind every invention and thought lies the question, is this profitable? Carlin and Wallin 2~Carlin, Matthew. Wallin, Jason. "Deleuze and Guattari, Politics and Education." Bloomsbury. 2014.~ SHS DH UV~1~ Kant affirms:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW ~2~ Presumption affirms: A) Epistemology – nobody would be able to start any stand of reasoning since they would already be questioning it B) Affirming is harder because of the 7463 time skew so if we're equal on the flow then I did the better debating.~3~ If theory is coherent, allow 1ar theory to check back against 1nc abuse. DTD and no RVIs because the 1ar is too short to substantively engage with abusive positions. | 10/31/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal FreedomTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage JW | Judge: Chetan Hertzig The metaethic is constitutivism.Internalist ethics fail since they can't have universal obligations which means not everybody has the same conception of morality ~1~ Regress – every moral theory can be infinitely questioned which proves its base nonbinding since any agent can opt out of it. Reason sovles since asking for a reason concedes its authority. Bindingness matters since otherwise morality would be optional and cannot explain goodness.~2~ Hijacks – All actions concede reason since to obtain goodness, you need to be able to take action and set and pursue ends meaning reason is the source of all value.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – experience just describes how the world is but doesn't indicate how it ought to be which means there must be an a priori conception of good~4~ Agency is inescapable – we can shift between different identities over time but that shift is an instance of agency, and it also takes practical reason to see which enterprises are most desirable.Thus, we share a unified perspective – everyone around me must arrive at the same conclusions through the use of reason. It's incoherent to say 2+24 for me but not you. ==== However, freedom is a necessary right because violating someone's freedom creates a contradiction in conception. We cannot will the extension of our freedom since it justifies others doing it to usEngstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW recut~ And, All agents must accept the state as necessary to enforce rights claims.Ripstein 04 ~Arthur Ripstein, (University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto) "Authority and Coercion" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32: 2–35, 2004, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00003.x/abstract, DOA:12-16-2017 WWBWrecut~ Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal freedoms.Impact Calc:The standard is non consequentialist so the state has no right to try to predict rights violations, it can only punish ongoing ones since it doesn't understand intent. Prefer for action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am eating a sandwich it is infinitely small movements of my arm. Only reason unifies those actions. This is necessary for ethics because it requires a judgement of a coherent action.Prefer additionally:~1~ Consequentialism fails – A~ Induction fails – 1. saying that induction works relies on induction itself because it assumes that past trends will continue, which means it's circular and unjustified 2. It assumes specific causes of past consequences which can't be verified as the actual cause B~ Butterfly effect - every action has infinite consequences so it is impossible to evaluate an action; one government policy could end up causing nuclear war in a million years. C~ Aggregation is impossible – pleasure and pain are subjective – we have no idea how many headaches equal a migraine D~ Infinite obligations – I have infinite obligations to maximize pleasure with no way to order them which freezes action.~2~ Performativity – contesting the fw needs freedom which concedes its authority since you couldn't do it without freedom.~3~ Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we 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. from ben ~4~ Ideal theory is preferable to non-ideal theory.A~ Goals – Ideal theory is the only way to identify what future we want. If we do not know what the ideal condition is, it becomes impossible to know what is non-ideal. Only through knowing what is the best can we know what is comparatively bad.B~ Is-ought gap – nonideal theories can only tell us what is not what ought to be. It fails to prescribe action after the problem is sovled.====~5~ Humanity is the ultimate center of ethics so we hijack other frameworks because morality only matters because of humanity. ==== I defend the resolution as a general principle – resolved: the member nations of the wto ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I am willing to shift my advocacy in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Offense:Under the fw, freedom is the base of all rights. If the aff proves intellectual property rights is not a necessary extension of freedom, then it is a violation of equal and outer freedoms because IP protections coercively prevent people from making certain medicines.Affirm:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. Cut from WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign of ownership which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. Cut from WWBW This means that you are unable to own intellectual property, so it isn't any real thing that exists in the world, it's a concept. Because of that, it violates freedom by restricting other people from using that intellectual property.Reject negative offense about free riding – even if they win it is true it is simply a consequence of the aff, not an intrinsic property of it.UV~1~ The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution through an ethical framework's interpretation of the word ought. To clarify, silly tricks will not matter. – Text – five dictionaries define negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true . Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Reject silly arguments about specification – 1~ they don't matter under the fw 2~ I said I was willing to change my advocacy to meet certain theory arguments 3~ It has nothing to do with the debate and detracts from educational value. I affirm the whole resolution so there's nothing that's relevant to specify. 4~ These arguments are regressive because you can ask us to specify an infinite amount of things.~3~ K links should be checked in cx because false accusations can be extremely harmful. | 10/31/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal Freedom V2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Isabella Nadel Permissibility and Presumption affirms:~A~ Logic – Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition. That is, to negate an action one would have to provide proactive reasoning as to why that action was wrong. In the absence of prohibitions, that affirms. The metaethic is constitutivism.Internalist ethics fail since they can't have universal obligations which means not everybody has the same conception of morality ~1~ Regress – every moral theory can be infinitely questioned which proves its base nonbinding since any agent can opt out of it. Reason sovles since asking for a reason concedes its authority. Bindingness matters since otherwise morality would be optional and cannot explain goodness.~2~ Hijacks – All actions concede reason since to obtain goodness, you need to be able to take action and set and pursue ends meaning reason is the source of all value.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – experience just describes how the world is but doesn't indicate how it ought to be which means there must be an a priori conception of good~4~ Agency is inescapable – we can shift between different identities over time but that shift is an instance of agency, and it also takes practical reason to see which enterprises are most desirable.Thus, we share a unified perspective – everyone around me must arrive at the same conclusions through the use of reason. It's incoherent to say 2+24 for me but not you. ==== However, freedom is a necessary right because violating someone's freedom creates a contradiction in conception. We cannot will the extension of our freedom since it justifies others doing it to usEngstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 recut~ And, All agents must accept the state as necessary to enforce rights claims.Ripstein 04 ~Arthur Ripstein, (University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto) "Authority and Coercion" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32: 2–35, 2004, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00003.x/abstract, DOA:12-16-2017 WWBWrecut~ Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal freedoms.Impact Calc:The standard is non consequentialist so the state has no right to try to predict rights violations, it can only punish ongoing ones since it doesn't understand intent. Prefer for action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am eating a sandwich it is infinitely small movements of my arm. Only reason unifies those actions. This is necessary for ethics because it requires a judgement of a coherent action.Prefer additionally:~1~ In round competitive equity - Frameworks are an interpretation of the word "ought" in the resolution, which means they are a topicality interpretation and thus should be theoretically justified. Prefer my framework - A) Resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytics are required. Controls the internal link to other voters because accessibility is a prior question B) Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under interpretation of Kantianism: perfect duties above imperfect duties, duties in right, etc. All other FWs consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or a function of them. Resolvability is a binary, not a sliding scale, either it requires intervention or its objectively evaluable. Resolvability is an independent voter because otherwise the judge can't make a decision which means it's a constraint on any ROB because otherwise the round is impossible. Impacts to fairness since it means the judge will not be able to make the fair decision.~2~ Consequentialism fails – A~ Induction fails – 1. saying that induction works relies on induction itself because it assumes that past trends will continue, which means it's circular and unjustified 2. It assumes specific causes of past consequences which can't be verified as the actual cause B~ Butterfly effect - every action has infinite consequences so it is impossible to evaluate an action; one government policy could end up causing nuclear war in a million years. C~ Aggregation is impossible – pleasure and pain are subjective – we have no idea how many headaches equal a migraine D~ Infinite obligations – I have infinite obligations to maximize pleasure with no way to order them which freezes action.~3~ Performativity – contesting the fw needs freedom which concedes its authority since you couldn't do it without freedom.~4~ Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we 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. from ben I defend the resolution as a general principle – resolved: the member nations of the wto ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I am willing to shift my advocacy in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Offense:Under the fw, freedom is the base of all rights. If the aff proves intellectual property rights is not a necessary extension of freedom, then it is a violation of equal and outer freedoms because IP protections coercively prevent people from making certain medicines.Affirm:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW UV1~ 1ar theory is good because its key to check 1nc abuse – otherwise the neg can read 50 aprioris with no recourse.2~ Its dtd since 1AR is too short to substantively engage abusive positions and it's a bigger time commitment for 4 minute 1ar.3~ No RVIs because its illogical – you don't win for being fair and it encourages baiting by reading abusive 1nc, and the 2nr has a 6 minute collapse to always win theory. Logic outweighs since it's a litmus test on all arguments. RVIs make it all about theory and not about the topic since someone is going to win on theory. Outweighs – 2 months to learn topic.4~ Competing interps because it creates the best norms and is most reciprocal on time since I had to structure a shell so you do too and easiest to learn for novices since its intuitive5~ Reject spec – its infinitely regressive and topic lit cards are arbitrary, and I said I would shift my advocacy within reason in cx so I meet.6~ Turns about free-riding are consequentialist insofar as they rely on the fact that after IPP is lowered people will free-ride. | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal Freedom V3Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Loyola LR | Judge: Cyrus Jackson Universal FreedomPermissibility and Presumption affirms:~A~ Logic – Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition. That is, to negate an action one would have to provide proactive reasoning as to why that action was wrong. In the absence of prohibitions, that affirms. The metaethic is constitutivism.Internalist ethics fail since they can't have universal obligations which means not everybody has the same conception of morality ~1~ Regress – every moral theory can be infinitely questioned which proves its base nonbinding since any agent can opt out of it. Reason sovles since asking for a reason concedes its authority. Bindingness matters since otherwise morality would be optional and cannot explain goodness.~2~ Hijacks – All actions concede reason since to obtain goodness, you need to be able to take action and set and pursue ends meaning reason is the source of all value.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – experience just describes how the world is but doesn't indicate how it ought to be which means there must be an a priori conception of good~4~ Agency is inescapable – we can shift between different identities over time but that shift is an instance of agency, and it also takes practical reason to see which enterprises are most desirable.Thus, we share a unified perspective – everyone around me must arrive at the same conclusions through the use of reason. It's incoherent to say 2+24 for me but not you. ==== However, freedom is a necessary right because violating someone's freedom creates a contradiction in conception. We cannot will the extension of our freedom since it justifies others doing it to usEngstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 recut~ And, All agents must accept the state as necessary to enforce rights claims.Ripstein 04 ~Arthur Ripstein, (University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto) "Authority and Coercion" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32: 2–35, 2004, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00003.x/abstract, DOA:12-16-2017 WWBWrecut~ Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal freedoms.Impact Calc:The standard is non consequentialist so the state has no right to try to predict rights violations, it can only punish ongoing ones since it doesn't understand intent. Prefer for action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am eating a sandwich it is infinitely small movements of my arm. Only reason unifies those actions. This is necessary for ethics because it requires a judgement of a coherent action.Prefer additionally:~1~ In round competitive equity - Frameworks are an interpretation of the word "ought" in the resolution, which means they are a topicality interpretation and thus should be theoretically justified. Prefer my framework - A) Resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge files. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any prep since only analytics are required. Controls the internal link to other voters because accessibility is a prior question B) Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under interpretation of Kantianism: perfect duties above imperfect duties, duties in right, etc. All other FWs consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or a function of them. Resolvability is a binary, not a sliding scale, either it requires intervention or its objectively evaluable. Resolvability is an independent voter because otherwise the judge can't make a decision which means it's a constraint on any ROB because otherwise the round is impossible.~2~ Consequentialism fails – A~ Induction fails – 1. saying that induction works relies on induction itself because it assumes that past trends will continue, which means it's circular and unjustified 2. It assumes specific causes of past consequences which can't be verified as the actual cause B~ Butterfly effect - every action has infinite consequences so it is impossible to evaluate an action; one government policy could end up causing nuclear war in a million years. C~ Aggregation is impossible – pleasure and pain are subjective – we have no idea how many headaches equal a migraine D~ Infinite obligations – I have infinite obligations to maximize pleasure with no way to order them which freezes action.~3~ Performativity – contesting the fw needs freedom which concedes its authority since you couldn't do it without freedom.~4~ Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we 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. from ben I defend the resolution as a general principle – resolved: the member nations of the wto ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I am willing to shift my advocacy in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Offense:Under the fw, freedom is the base of all rights. If the aff proves intellectual property rights is not a necessary extension of freedom, then it is a violation of equal and outer freedoms because IP protections coercively prevent people from making certain medicines.Affirm:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW UV1~ 1ar theory is good because its key to check 1nc abuse – otherwise the neg can read 50 aprioris with no recourse.2~ Its dtd since 1AR is too short to substantively engage abusive positions and it's a bigger time commitment for 4 minute 1ar.3~ No RVIs because its illogical – you don't win for being fair and it encourages baiting by reading abusive 1nc, and the 2nr has a 6 minute collapse to always win theory. Logic outweighs since it's a litmus test on all arguments. RVIs make it all about theory and not about the topic since someone is going to win on theory.4~ Competing interps because it creates the best norms and is most reciprocal on time since I had to structure a shell so you do too and easiest to learn for novices since its intuitive5~ aff theory first since neg theory has 13-7 or 6-3 time skew with the 2n collapse. You'd just win every round. | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal Freedom V4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Universal FreedomPermissibility and Presumption affirms:~A~ Logic – Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition. That is, to negate an action one would have to provide proactive reasoning as to why that action was wrong. In the absence of prohibitions, that affirms. The metaethic is constitutivism.Internalist ethics fail since they can't have universal obligations which means not everybody has the same conception of morality ~1~ Regress – every moral theory can be infinitely questioned which proves its base nonbinding since any agent can opt out of it. Reason sovles since asking for a reason concedes its authority. Bindingness matters since otherwise morality would be optional and cannot explain goodness.~2~ Hijacks – All actions concede reason since to obtain goodness, you need to be able to take action and set and pursue ends meaning reason is the source of all value.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – experience just describes how the world is but doesn't indicate how it ought to be which means there must be an a priori conception of good~4~ Agency is inescapable – we can shift between different identities over time but that shift is an instance of agency, and it also takes practical reason to see which enterprises are most desirable.Thus, we share a unified perspective – everyone around me must arrive at the same conclusions through the use of reason. It's incoherent to say 2+24 for me but not you. ==== However, freedom is a necessary right because violating someone's freedom creates a contradiction in conception. We cannot will the extension of our freedom since it justifies others doing it to usEngstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 recut~ And, All agents must accept the state as necessary to enforce rights claims.Ripstein 04 ~Arthur Ripstein, (University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto) "Authority and Coercion" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32: 2–35, 2004, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00003.x/abstract, DOA:12-16-2017 WWBWrecut~ Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal freedoms.Impact Calc:We'll defend logistic kantianism so the standard is non consequentialist so the state has no right to try to predict rights violations, it can only punish ongoing ones since it doesn't understand intent. Prefer for action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am eating a sandwich it is infinitely small movements of my arm. Only reason unifies those actions. This is necessary for ethics because it requires a judgement of a coherent action.Prefer additionally:~1~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under interpretation of Kantianism: perfect duties above imperfect duties, duties in right, etc. All other FWs consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or a function of them. Resolvability is a binary, not a sliding scale, either it requires intervention or its objectively evaluable. Resolvability is an independent voter because otherwise the judge can't make a decision which means it's a constraint on any ROB because otherwise the round is impossible.~2~ Consequentialism fails –A~ Induction fails –1. saying that induction works relies on induction itself because it assumes that past trends will continue, which means it's circular and unjustified2. It assumes specific causes of past consequences which can't be verified as the actual causeB~ Butterfly effect - every action has infinite consequences so it is impossible to evaluate an action; one government policy could end up causing nuclear war in a million years.C~ Aggregation is impossible – pleasure and pain are subjective – we have no idea how many headaches equal a migraineD~ Infinite obligations – I have infinite obligations to maximize pleasure with no way to order them which freezes action.~3~ Performativity – contesting the fw needs freedom which concedes its authority since you couldn't do it without freedom.====~4~ Humanity is the ultimate center of ethics so we hijack other frameworks because morality only matters because of humanity. ==== I defend the resolution as a general principle – resolved: the member nations of the wto ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I am willing to shift my advocacy in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Offense:Under the fw, freedom is the base of all rights. If the aff proves intellectual property rights is not a necessary extension of freedom, then it is a violation of equal and outer freedoms because IP protections coercively prevent people from making certain medicines. But intellectual property is not necessary to set and pursue ends.Affirm:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW Reject args about freeriding – they are literally just consequentialist args because nothing prevents people from making medicines, just removes their incentives to do so.UV1~ 1ar theory is good because its key to check 1nc abuse – otherwise the neg can read 50 aprioris with no recourse.2~ Its dtd since 1AR is too short to substantively engage abusive positions and it's a bigger time commitment for 4 minute 1ar.3~ No RVIs on aff theory since you get a 6 minute collapse which means you always win and you always are ahead on your theory debate so its to make up for the skew.4~ Competing interps because it creates the best norms and is most reciprocal on time since I had to structure a shell so you do too and easiest to learn for novices since its intuitive5~ aff theory first since neg theory has 13-7 or 6-3 time skew with the 2n collapse. You'd just win every round.7~ The ROB is to endorse the debater that best proves their world is preferable under an ethical framework. Prefer:A~ Affirm and negate don't appear anywhere in the resolution which makes it unpredictable contestationB~ Real world edu b/c policymakers have to compare between different things to passC~ Topic ed – anything else allows debaters to recycle generic arguments that deny the truth of everythingD~ Phil ed – c/a topic ed. | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal Freedom V5Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Iowa City West JS | Judge: Joey Georges Universal FreedomMy opinion on Dave McGinnis is that he is the best person to ever exist. Please specify what your opinion on Dave McGinnis is to build a community that has a consensus on him.Permissibility and Presumption affirms:~A~ Logic – Negating an obligation requires proving a prohibition. That is, to negate an action one would have to provide proactive reasoning as to why that action was wrong. In the absence of prohibitions, that affirms. The metaethic is constitutivism.Internalist ethics fail since they can't have universal obligations which means not everybody has the same conception of morality ~1~ Regress – every moral theory can be infinitely questioned which proves its base nonbinding since any agent can opt out of it. Reason sovles since asking for a reason concedes its authority. Bindingness matters since otherwise morality would be optional and cannot explain goodness.~2~ Hijacks – All actions concede reason since to obtain goodness, you need to be able to take action and set and pursue ends meaning reason is the source of all value.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – experience just describes how the world is but doesn't indicate how it ought to be which means there must be an a priori conception of good~4~ Agency is inescapable – we can shift between different identities over time but that shift is an instance of agency, and it also takes practical reason to see which enterprises are most desirable.Thus, we share a unified perspective – everyone around me must arrive at the same conclusions through the use of reason. It's incoherent to say 2+24 for me but not you. ==== However, freedom is a necessary right because violating someone's freedom creates a contradiction in conception. We cannot will the extension of our freedom since it justifies others doing it to usEngstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 recut~ And, All agents must accept the state as necessary to enforce rights claims.Ripstein 04 ~Arthur Ripstein, (University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto) "Authority and Coercion" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32: 2–35, 2004, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00003.x/abstract, DOA:12-16-2017 WWBWrecut~ Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal freedoms.Impact Calc:The standard is non consequentialist so the state has no right to try to predict rights violations, it can only punish ongoing ones since it doesn't understand intent. Prefer for action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am eating a sandwich it is infinitely small movements of my arm. Only reason unifies those actions. This is necessary for ethics because it requires a judgement of a coherent action.Prefer additionally:~1~ Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we 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. from ben ~2~ Ideal theory is preferable to non-ideal theory.A~ Goals – Ideal theory is the only way to identify what future we want. If we do not know what the ideal condition is, it becomes impossible to know what is non-ideal. Only through knowing what is the best can we know what is comparatively bad.B~ Is-ought gap – nonideal theories can only tell us what is not what ought to be. It fails to prescribe action after the problem is sovled.====~3~ Humanity is the ultimate center of ethics so we hijack other frameworks because morality only matters because of humanity. ==== ~4~ Consequentialism fails – A~ Induction fails – 1. saying that induction works relies on induction itself because it assumes that past trends will continue, which means it's circular and unjustified 2. It assumes specific causes of past consequences which can't be verified as the actual cause B~ Butterfly effect - every action has infinite consequences so it is impossible to evaluate an action; one government policy could end up causing nuclear war in a million years. C~ Aggregation is impossible – pleasure and pain are subjective – we have no idea how many headaches equal a migraine~5~ Performativity – contesting the fw needs freedom which concedes its authority since you couldn't do it without freedom.I defend the resolution as a general principle – resolved: the member nations of the wto ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I am willing to shift my advocacy in cx as long as I don't have to abandon my maxim.Offense:Under the fw, freedom is the base of all rights. If the aff proves intellectual property rights is not a necessary extension of freedom, then it is a violation of equal and outer freedoms because IP protections coercively prevent people from making certain medicines.Affirm:Property only exists as an extension of one's right to set and pursue ends which means it can only apply to physical objects – your use of intellectual property could never hinder my freedom because both of us can use it!Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW That affirms since property rights exist because if people took away your property, you lose the ability to use it to pursue ends. But, it doesn't apply to intellectual property since other people can take your intellectual property and you can still use it.Ownership requires physical possession and giving a sign which are both impossible for immaterial objects.Ripstein 09 Ripstein, Arthur. University Professor of Law and Philosophy, University of Toronto. "Force And Freedom." Harvard University Press. 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0. WWBW UV1~ 1ar theory is good because its key to check 1nc abuse – otherwise the neg can read 50 aprioris with no recourse.2~ Its dtd since 1AR is too short to substantively engage abusive positions and it's a bigger time commitment for 4 minute 1ar.3~ No RVIs on aff theory since the 2nr collapse overwhelms us and you always win.4~ Competing interps because it creates the best norms and is most reciprocal on time since I had to structure a shell so you do too and easiest to learn for novices since its intuitive5~ aff theory first since neg theory has 13-7 or 6-3 time skew with the 2n collapse. You'd just win every round.6~ ~A~ IP protections create one-sided contracts in which corporations have full control over prices for drugs that patients in necessity desire – these are by definition unequal contracts since corporations have complete leverage insofar as patients desire health and that's what medicine is for. Even if companies don't do this it proves the concept of a medicine patent is intrinsically bad.~B~ IPP is a form of the government creating and enforcing a contract between the producer and the rest of society without being agreed on by BOTH sides – it is by definition a bad contract since there's not mutual consent and an equal footingShaffer 13 (Butler Shaffer, 2013, Mises Institute, "A Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property", https://cdn.mises.org/Libertarian20Critique20of20Intellectual20Property.pdf) ~C~ Reject procedural offense about the violation of current contracts - 1. Logic – It doesn't matter if it's a violation of the process of the framework if the conclusion of the framework itself disagrees since the point of ethics is to make the right decision | 10/16/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/7/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/13/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/13/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/13/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/13/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
9/25/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
9/26/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
10/16/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
10/16/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
10/31/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
|