Scarsdale Huang Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hello | Semis | Me | You |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | American Heritage JW | Chetan Hertzig |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Hello | Semis | Opponent: Me | Judge: You no |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: American Heritage JW | Judge: Chetan Hertzig 1ac - Universal Freedom |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Hello | Round: Semis | Opponent: Me | Judge: You | 9/22/21 |
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. | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - AC - Universal FreedomTournament: 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 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/25/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
|