Scarsdale Huang Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | American Heritage AP | Momo Khattak |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Byram Hills EW | Ava Zinman |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Acton Boxborough ALi Alexander Li | Zachary Reshovsky |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Edina JS | Grant Brown |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Millard North JS | Patrick Fox |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 1 | East Lincoln BH | Lila Lavender |
|
|
| |
| Capitalism RR | Finals | Jean Baudrillard | Immanuel Kant |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | 4 | Isidore Newman EE | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | 6 | Mount Vernon TK | Chloe Ricks |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 2 | Iowa City West ST | William Freedman |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | Pine View EL | Grant Brown |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Troy Independent AP | Aditya Madaraju |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Sequoia AS | Aryan Jasani |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Mission San Jose SB | Keshav Dandu |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Lake Highland PS | Jim Gray |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Unionville PW | Kyle Kopf |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Northview AA | Chetan Hertzig |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Byram AK | Grant Brown |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Opponent: American Heritage AP | Judge: Momo Khattak 1ac - stock |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Ava Zinman 1ac - stock |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Acton Boxborough ALi Alexander Li | Judge: Zachary Reshovsky 1ac - stock |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Edina JS | Judge: Grant Brown 1ac - monarch |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Millard North JS | Judge: Patrick Fox 1ac - Structural Violence |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: East Lincoln BH | Judge: Lila Lavender 1ac - stock |
| Capitalism RR | Finals | Opponent: Jean Baudrillard | Judge: Immanuel Kant no |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | 4 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Devin Hernandez 1ac - PTD |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | 6 | Opponent: Mount Vernon TK | Judge: Chloe Ricks 1ac - structural violence |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: William Freedman 1ac - contracts |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Pine View EL | Judge: Grant Brown 1ac - China |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Aditya Madaraju 1ac - LEO |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Aryan Jasani 1ac - biopiracy |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Keshav Dandu 1ac - Preciado |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Lake Highland PS | Judge: Jim Gray lay round |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Unionville PW | Judge: Kyle Kopf 1ac - commodification |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Northview AA | Judge: Chetan Hertzig 1ac - covid |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Byram AK | Judge: Grant Brown 1ac - contracts |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Capitalism RR | Round: Finals | Opponent: Jean Baudrillard | 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 | 1/17/22 |
G - K - Util is False-tilTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Northview AA | Judge: Chetan Hertzig Utilitarianism is morally repugnant:~A~ Util justifies atrocities since it justifies allowing us to harm some for the benefit of others – it would say we have a moral obligation to torture someone to save the life of another person.~B~ Util can't justify intrinsic wrongness – We can't know whether our action was good until we've evaluated the state of affairs they've produced since it's based on the outcome of the action. For example, if asked the question "is slavery ok?", a utilitarian would not be able to say no because there are situations in which it would be morally obligatory to do so if it maximized pleasure. Probability doesn't solve because that just allows for moral error and freezes action while attempting to calculate the perfect decision.~C~ Util Justifies Death good – the absence of pleasure is not bad since there is no life to calculate its lossed value and experience its absence but the lack of pain is actively good even if that good cannot be enjoyed by anyone because it would still have net value. This puts them in a double bind: Either A) we intuitively know killing people is wrong in which case you reject util or B) they condone death as good in which case their offense affirms.~D~ It's racist – Deployments of utilitarianism often privilege one group of people over another since their lives are seen as more valuable, their pain seen as more intolerable. Only our framing can resolve these issues. Because we value equality.Your endorsement of utilitarianism is a voting issue for accessibility. It makes debate intrinsically unsafe by justifying repugnant conclusions and proves that violence already happened. Accessibility 1st. Outweighs ur arguments on ballot proximity because this comes as a prefiat impact.~1~ It's a prerequisite to engaging in round – people need to be able to access the space before being able to debate~2~ safety – the ballot is key to motivate you to not read frameworks that justify repugnant conclusions. Ensuring nobody feels threatened by argumentation is important | 11/1/21 |
G - ROB - TTTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Edina JS | Judge: Grant Brown The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution – Text – five dictionaries define negate as to deny the truth of . Text first – 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. | 11/6/21 |
G - Theory - Broken InterpsTournament: Capitalism RR | Round: Finals | Opponent: Jean Baudrillard | Judge: Immanuel Kant Here are my extempted interps:Blake R4: Interp: debaters must not change the actor in the plan text from the actor in the resolution and read actor specificity arguments. Standard was inf abuse. | 1/17/22 |
JF22 - K - WeheliyeTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mount Vernon TK | Judge: Chloe Ricks KThe subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same person that I was a years ago, which proves personal evolution. | 12/19/21 |
JF22 - K - Weheliye V2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Ava Zinman | 2/20/22 |
JF22 - NC - KantTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | Round: 4 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Devin Hernandez Permissibility negates:~1~ Lack of a justice value proves the res false. The aff has to prove a proactive reason for justness since there is a trichotomy between something being just, unjust, and neutral.~2~ Statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways but true in only one.The metaethic is constitutivism – ethics must be derived from immutable features of agencyEthics motivated internally fail since they don't generate universal obligations. Ethics motivated externally fail since they generate nonbinding obligations and beg the question of why these obligations exist and why we care. Constitutivism solves because agency is definitionally universal and binding – it's inescapable.Practical reason is constitutive of agency – you can shift between different identities, but the only temporally constant feature is your ability to choose. Attempting to escape practical reason is incoherent because you use practical reason to choose to escape it – that's circular.That justifies a right to freedom – there are no a priori distinctions between agents, so because I am a practical reasoner, I understand a priori knowledge like 2+2 is 4 but I also understand other practical reasoners can arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, only maxims that can apply to all agents in all situations are constitutive of agency. Otherwise, there would be instances in which it is incoherent. Violations of freedom are non-universalizable because to violate someone's freedom, you must have your own freedom to do so.Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedoms.Prefer additionally:~1~ Humanity is the ultimate center of ethics so we hijack other frameworks because morality only matters because of humanity.
~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~ A priori ethics are the only stable epistemology –a~ Cartesian Skep – there's no way of verifying the truth of our experience since we could be getting tricked by an evil demon. Only a priori ethics avoid this because they are not derived empiricallyb~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can't have a unified perspective on the good if we have different conceptions of it. Aggregation doesn't solve because there will be times it fails.c~ Prerequisite – in order to interpret space around us we need to represent it in the a priori.~4~ Practical reason hijacks –a~ Regress – any principle can be infinitely questioned which proves its base non-binding but only reason solves because when you question something you concede to the authority of reasonb~ Action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am moving my arm it is infinitely small connected movements. Only the intentionality of the action can solves meaning intentions outweigh.c~ Hijacks – when we set ends we attempt to achieve what is good, so we must regard the capacity to set and pursue ends as intrinsically valuable.OffenseAcquisition of property can never be unjust – to create rights violations, there must already be an owner of the property being violated, but that presupposes its appropriation by another entity.Feser 1, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st To own yourself and use your own freedom is to be able to interact with external objects. Anything else makes you unable to exercise your own freedom on other things and creates a contradiction.Feser 2, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st | 12/19/21 |
JF22 - NC - Kant V2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Iowa City West ST | Judge: William Freedman | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - NC - Kant V3Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Pine View EL | Judge: Grant Brown | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - NC - Kant V4Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Aditya Madaraju The metaethic is constitutivism – ethics must be derived from immutable features of agencyEthics motivated internally fail since they don't generate universal obligations. Ethics motivated externally fail since they generate nonbinding obligations and beg the question of why these obligations exist and why we care. Constitutivism solves because agency is definitionally universal and binding – it's inescapable.Practical reason is constitutive of agency – you can shift between different identities, but the only temporally constant feature is your ability to choose. Attempting to escape practical reason is incoherent because you use practical reason to choose to escape it – that's circular.That justifies a right to freedom – there are no a priori distinctions between agents, so because I am a practical reasoner, I understand a priori knowledge like 2+2 is 4 but I also understand other practical reasoners can arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, only maxims that can apply to all agents in all situations are constitutive of agency. Otherwise, there would be instances in which it is incoherent. Violations of freedom are non-universalizable because to violate someone's freedom, you must have your own freedom to do so.The role of the state is to protect freedom – without the state there would be no mechanism to guarantee equal freedom. People cannot exclude themselves from the law because that would directly be willing coercion.Thus the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedoms.Prefer additionally:~1~ A priori ethics are the only stable epistemology –A~ Cartesian Skep – there's no way of verifying the truth of our experience since we could be getting tricked by an evil demon. Only a priori ethics avoid this because they are not derived empiricallyb~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can't have a unified perspective on the good if we have different conceptions of it. Aggregation doesn't solve because there will be times it fails.c~ Prerequisite – in order to interpret space around us we need to represent it in the a priori.~2~ Practical reason hijacks –a~ Regress – any principle can be infinitely questioned which proves its base non-binding but only reason solves because when you question something you concede to the authority of reasonb~ Action theory – any action can be split into infinite smaller actions. When I am moving my arm it is infinitely small connected movements. Only the intentionality of the action can solves meaning intentions outweigh.c~ Hijacks – when we set ends we attempt to achieve what is good, so we must regard the capacity to set and pursue ends as intrinsically valuable.~4~ Consequentialism fails because there are infinite consequences from every actionI'll defend the status quo.Negate:Acquisition of property can never be unjust – to create rights violations, there must already be an owner of the property being violated, but that presupposes its appropriation by another entity.Feser 05, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st There is a serious difficulty with this criticism of Nozick, however. It is just this: There is no such | 1/16/22 |
JF22 - NC - Kant V4Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage AP | Judge: Momo Khattak | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - T - LeslieTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Aditya Madaraju Interpretation: "the appropriation of outer space" is a generic indefinite singular. The aff may not defend a subset of appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust.The definite article "the" makes the rez a definite singular – it's genericCCC n.d. ~Capital Community College, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation.~ "Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers." Capital Community College. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles TG The upward entailment test and adverb test determine the genericity of a definite singularLeslie 16 ~Sarah-Jane Leslie, Ph.D., Princeton, 2007. Dean of the Graduate School and Class of 1943 Professor of Philosophy. Served as the vice dean for faculty development in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, director of the Program in Linguistics, and founding director of the Program in Cognitive Science at Princeton University.~ "Generic Generalizations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 24, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ TG
It applies to "the appropriation of outer space" – 1~ upward entailment test – "the appropriation of outer space is unjust" doesn't entail that "the use of outer space is unjust" 2~ adverb test – "the appropriation of outer space is usually unjust" doesn't mean anything substantially different from the rezViolation – they only defend starlink appropriationVote neg:1~ Limits – they can pick any form of appropriation from internet satellites to asteroid mining to moon basing to Mars colonization and there's no universal disad since they're all different and require different uses space – explodes neg prep and leads to random appropriation of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible. PICs don't solve – it's absurd to say neg potential abuse justifies the aff being flat out not T, which leads to a race towards abuse. Limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep.2~ TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff. | 1/16/22 |
JF22 - T - Outer SpaceTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Aditya Madaraju Interpretation: Outer space starts 372 miles above the surface of earth.National Geographic No Date ~National Geographic Society, "Atmosphere," https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmosphere/~~ Sachin Starlink's satelites reach 340 Miles above earth's surface.Mann 19, ~Adam Mann, 5-24-2019, "Starlink: SpaceX's satellite internet project," Space, https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html~~ Sachin Violation: 340 miles is less than the 372 miles necessary to be considered outer space; they explicitly defend only LEOVote neg:1~ Limits and ground: the aff interpretation explodes the topic to allow any aff about space generally which structurally alters the neg research burden because there's a qualitative difference between outer space and the atmosohere. Means we get no ground bc of how unpredictable the AC could be from round to round – kills core neg generics like space col bad and mining that don't link if you specify a part of space2~ Precision – Justifies the aff arbitrarily doing away with words in the resolution which gives way to affs about anything which obliterates neg prep.Private multi-actor fiat is a voter —- proven by them spiking out of the enforcement question in CXUse competing interps - Topicality is a binary question, you can't be reasonably topical and it invites a race to the bottom of interventionDrop the debater – dropping the argument doesn't rectify abuse since winning T proves why we don't have the burden of rejoinder against their aff.No RVIS – it's your burden to be topical | 1/16/22 |
JF22 - Theory - No util plzTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by the Blake School | Round: 4 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Devin Hernandez Interp – Debaters must only read a framework that is not maximizing expected well-being.Violation – You read util1. Inclusion – Util is bad for inclusion: A) Bad for small schools since it maximizes the benefit for large program with mass amounts of prep B) Util justifies atrocities since it justifies allowing us to harm some for the benefit of others. C) Util can't justify intrinsic wrongness – We can't know whether our action was good until we've evaluated the states of affairs they've produced since it's based on the outcome of the action. For Example if asked the question "is rape okay?" a utilitarian would not be able to say no because there are situations in which it would be morally obligatory to do so if it maximized pleasure D) It's ableist – certain individuals can't experience pain and pleasure which justifies their inability to be agents and their manipulation.2. Resolvability – Util makes debates irresolvable: A) There are infinite end states to each action that I may take meaning we can never know if it is a good or bad action as per util because it could possibly result in many ways B) Aggregation is impossible since there's no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migraine C) Induction paradox – Either it's the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there's no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other's actions, and will cancel out the obligations D) Since it requires evaluating end-states we can't know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good E) Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) "Everybody's An Expert" The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS "Expert Political Judgment" is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley—and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty years ago. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living "commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends," and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass, both in the areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert. Would there be a nonviolent end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Would Canada disintegrate? (Many experts believed that it would, on the ground that Quebec would succeed in seceding.) And so on. By the end of the study, in 2003, the experts had made 82,361 forecasts. Tetlock also asked questions designed to determine how they reached their judgments, how they reacted when their predictions proved to be wrong, how they evaluated new information that did not support their views, and how they assessed the probability that rival theories and predictions were accurate. Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a "three possible futures" form. The respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo, more of something (political freedom, ~e.g.~ economic growth), or less of something (repression, ~e.g.~ recession). And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?), and how accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes. The results were unimpressive. On the first scale, the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices.Voters –Inclusion is a voter since it's a pre-requisite to engagement in the space and the judge has an obligation as an educator to ensure a safe space. Resolvability is a voter since anything else maximizes the probability of judge intervention which minimizes the ballot as a determiner of the better debater which is its constitutive purpose.Drop the debater – 1. Deterrence – Prevents reading the abusive practice in the future since it's not worth risking the loss which is k2 norm setting indefensible practices die out 2. TS – Otherwise you'll read a bunch of abusive practices for the time trade off 3. Epistemic Skew – The round has already been skewed so it's impossible to evaluate the rest of the flowCompeting interps – 1. Reasonability encourages a race to the margins of what counts as sufficiently fair which incentivizes as much abuse as possible 2. Norm setting – it encourages the most fair rule through debating competing models 3. Judge intervention – Reasonability begs the question of what the judge thinks is sufficient which takes the round out of the debaters hands.No RVIs – 1. Baiting – incentivizes people to be abusive and script counter-interps to win on the RVI which increases the existence of bad norms 2. It forces debaters to argue for bad practices even if they realize their interp is wrong which kills substance debate and norm setting since we have bad theory debates we agree on. 3. Logic – you don't win for proving you're fair, otherwise rounds without theory are irresolvable. | 12/19/21 |
ND21 - K - RecognitionTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: East Lincoln BH | Judge: Lila Lavender The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same person that I was a years ago, which proves personal evolution. | 11/23/21 |
ND21 - K - Recognition V2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millard North JS | Judge: Patrick Fox 1The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same person that I was a years ago, which proves personal evolution. | 11/11/21 |
ND21 - NC - KantTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Edina JS | Judge: Grant Brown Ethics must solve the internalism-externalism paradox—either reasons for action are based on an agent's internal motivation, or on a priori objective reasons. However, both of these accounts fail since internal motivations are contingent and arbitrary, while external reasons beg the question of a source for these reasons. The solution is constitutivism, or the idea that ethics must be based on the nature of agency. Only this can solve the paradox—concerns derived from the nature of agents are objective and non-optional, yet are motivational for all agents.Thus, the metaethic is constitutivism.Prefer:~1~ Agency is the only non-optional enterprise—everything is part of it. Every action part of an optional enterprise is part of agency. This round is part of my identity as a debater, but it's also engagement in agency.~2~ Regress—trying to escape agency necessitates using rational reflection about what I ought to do, which is part of agency.And, practical reason is constitutive of agents. ~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. Willing a violation of freedom results in a contradiction because it presupposes you have your own freedom to do so in the first place.==== 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.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 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.~2~ Performativity – any arguments as to why the framework is false presupposes you have the freedom to make those arguments.I defend the squo. Negate:1~ Strikes fail to fulfill dutyFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG 2~ Workers promise in contracts not to strike, these contracts grant employers the right to fire people if they strike and has been upheld by the state."Employer Sanctions for Violation of No-Strike Clause: Union Busting through Mass Discharge and Rescission." Yale Law Journal, N.d. digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8323andcontext=ylj. Accessed 23 June 2021. Promise breaking is bad – it's non universalizable because it gets rid of conceptions of truth.3~ Uses others as a mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - Theory - ColtTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Edina JS | Judge: Grant Brown Interpretation: If a debater proposes a role of the ballot, they must indicate what advocacies are acceptable under the role of the ballot in a delineated text in the 1ac.Violation: You don't specifyStandards: 1. Resolvability: Absent specification, it's impossible to debate and adjudicate especially when debaters derive offense under the role of the ballot using separate methods or the same method in different ways. Since these arguments are incomparable, the judge is forced to intervene. Resolvability is an independent voter since every round needs a winner, which means that this shell is a prior question.2. Strat Skew: By not meeting these conditions, they make it impossible to formulate a strategy because I don't know what links to their evaluative mechanism. Strategy is key to formulating arguments and engaging in positions. If I go for a policy action and then you say the ROB is about speech acts then I lose any ability to engage in that new framing. Fairness is a voter because it's a gateway issue to evaluate substance – if its skewed then there's no way to know who is winningDTD abuse | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - Theory - EspecTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: East Lincoln BH | Judge: Lila Lavender Interpretation: Debaters must specify how they enforce the unconditional right of workers to strike.Violation: you didn't'1~ Topic lit – enforcement is the core question of the topic and there's no consensus on normal means so you must spec- also proves this specific interp isn't infinitely regressive bc it is grounded in topic lit WeissMarley S. Weiss ~Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law~, 2000, "The Right To Strike In Essential Services Under United States Labor Law", https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2189andcontext=fac_pubs This acts as a resolvability standard. Debate has to make sense and be comparable for the judge to make a decision which means it's an independent voter and outweighs.2~ Stable advocacy – 1AR clarification delinks neg positions that prove why enforcement in a certain instance is bad by saying it isn't their method of enforcement – wrecks neg ballot access and kills in depth clash – CX doesn't check since it kills 1NC construction pre-round since I don't know advocacy till in round, and judges do not flow cross ex so its not verifiable.3~ Prep skew – I don't know what they will be willing to clarify until CX which means I could go 6 minutes planning to read a disad and then get screwed over in CX when they spec something else.Fairness is a voter because a) gateway issue- the judge needs to evaluate the better debater b) controls internal link to other votersDrop the debater to deter future abuse, dta is incoherentNo RVIs 1) its illogical you don't win by proving that you're fair – logic is a litmus test for args 2) encourages theory baiting where good theory debaters bait the RVI to win 3) creates a chilling effect – aff is uniquely dangerous on theory because they get to read a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar collapse: negs would always be disincentives from reading theory which leads to infinite abuseUse competing interps it creates a race to the top where we set the best norms | 11/23/21 |
SO21 - CP - Eliminate IPTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Unionville PW | Judge: Kyle Kopf CP text: the member nations of the WTO ought to eliminate intellectual property protections for medicines.It's competitive -Michigan District Court 11 "SAGINAW OFFICE SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-CV-13889 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION," https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-4_09-cv-13889/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-4_09-cv-13889-2.pdf Lexis NB: solves back better for your offense since there are still unresolved harms – per your own offense. | 10/18/21 |
SO21 - CP - Land AckowledgementTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Keshav Dandu Counterplan text: do the aff with the addition of a land acknowledgement of the indigenous tribes whose land the aff is speaking on.Inserting land acknowledgements into government are important to disrupt structures of settler colonialism.Vowel 16 ~Chelsea Vowel is Métis from manitow-sâkahikan (Lac Ste. Anne) Alberta, residing in amiskwacîwâskahikan (Edmonton). Mother to six girls, she has a BEd and LLB, and is currently a graduate student and Cree language instructor at the Faculty of Native studies at the University of Alberta. "Beyond territorial acknowledgments" âpihtawikosisân, 9-23-2016, https://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/09/beyond-territorial-acknowledgments/, DOA:11-30-2019 WWBW~ Land acknowledgement: Today I need to acknowledge the Wappinger and Munsee Lenape peoples whose land I am on today. I would like to acknowledge their ancestors who were victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing and forcefully removed from here. I live on the traditional lands of these tribes, yet their land was stolen and removed by settler colonialism. The Wappinger and Munsee Lenape have rights to these lands even today.====Settler colonialism operates via a series of moves to innocence – by prioritizing other issues above indigenous life, the 1AC has continued the deliberate removal of indigeneity from history.==== No permutations: a~ double-bind: either the perm includes the aff alt without the land acknowledgement and it links to the net benefit, or it doesn't involve a bill without land acknowledgement and its severance b~ the perm is cooption – it allows settler colonial acts of governance to pay lip service to indigenous life without interrogating why they're doing it – by saying perm do both is not valuable when they have not done the critical interrogation that makes land acknowledgements valuable c~ it's not aff-plus – its literally alt – it's not mutually exclusive but I've won the lack of a land acknowledgement in the aff is actively violent | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - Hijack - HobbesTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Byram AK | Judge: Grant Brown HijackMoral internalism means we should be consistent with the will of the sovereign –1~ If people are self interested then they will compete and fight over limited resources, causes the state of nature which is infinite violence. Empirically proven since people break contracts all the time2~ No way to determine which kinds of contracts exist, means that hobbes is necessary to have an explicit contract between people that doesn't vary based on individual subjectivity.3~ No warrant that people are perfectly rational and would always choose contracts – also no warrant that they should be perfectly rational, we are k2 have a stable conception of truth and meaningThat means we should agree to a sovereign in order to ajudacate everything and abide by all their rules. That negates:1~ Coercing the state to act is a violation since the aff is a departure from the squo2~ States have a right to protect the intellectual property that give it power. | 11/6/21 |
SO21 - K - WeheliyeTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Aryan Jasani The subject is fundamentally unstable: it is constantly fractured by time. "I think" does not determine the subject, it is simply something it can do, as the I is always being fractured through time and is only experienced, not initiated. Thus, subjectivity is constitutively unstable: we are not the same person that we were a year ago.Subjectivity is predicated on the power to affect and be affected, the only constitutive part. We are constantly facing affective experiences which provesThat proves affect is inescapable – I can't stop experiencing you as you are experiencing me, we are constantly being affected and it comes before your framing.The state and the court are focused on eliminating deviancy from the western Man. The aff's position of granting rights not only posits the state above all others, it begs the question of who is included in these rights. By including humans, it begs the question, who is not human? Who doesn't deserve rights? Thus the guise of progress hides regression – inclusion only pushes others farther from the colorline of inclusion.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye; Associate Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University; 2014; "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human";~ When examining a group to grant rights to, the state violently compares groups to their truth: the western Man. While the state offered rights to indigenous people who converted closer to whiteness and the Man, it even further excluded the slaves – distancing them from the Man and solidifying the hierarchy of western Man above all else. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct the western Man.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye; Associate Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University; 2014; "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human";~ Legal recognition happens on the comparison of suffering between individuals which is psychologically violent since the oppressed have to make the hardest part of their life comfortable to their oppressors so they get rights. Instead, politics should focus on overcoming instead of dwelling in their current suffering.Weheliye 3 ~Alexander Weheliye; Associate Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University; 2014; "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human";~ By emphasizing the distinctions between humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans, whiteness becomes viewed as Truth and the bar at which everyone is compared in the color line. The color line emphasizes phenotypical distinctions as the standard for which bodies enter spaces of liminality.Wynter 3 ~Sylvia; 2003; "Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument," CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3,257-337~ Instead of centering our humanity around Habeas Corpus, habeas viscus centers it around the flesh. It gives us a new way of emancipating ourselves from the confines of the colorline and the state. Thus the alt is to dwell in the hieroglyphics of the flesh as a tactic of guerrilla warfare. This focusing on both affective bonds and community building as a way to resist the state.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye; Associate Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University; 2014; "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human";~ | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - K - Weheliye V2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Byram AK | Judge: Grant Brown The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same person that I was a years ago, which proves personal evolution. | 11/6/21 |
SO21 - K - Weheliye V3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Unionville PW | Judge: Kyle Kopf KThe subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same person that I was a years ago, which proves personal evolution. | 10/18/21 |
SO21 - NC - KantTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Northview AA | 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 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 my intention can unify what an action means. 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.I'll defend the status quo.Negate:~1~ The aff violates the categorical imperative and is non-universalizable- governments have a binding obligation to protect creationsVan Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS ~2~ The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanityVan Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS That's non universalizable since your ability to free ride hinders other people's to freeride. | 11/1/21 |
SO21 - NC - LayTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lake Highland PS | Judge: Jim Gray I negate the resolution: Resolved: the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Contention 1My thesis is that intellectual property protections are fundamental to motivating companies to take the risk to make new drugs~a~ The research and development of new drugs takes billions of dollars and a huge time investment only for the smallest fraction of these drugs to make it to market. Intellectual property protection is necessary to motivate companies to endure this process. Thus not having adequate means IPP there would be NO innovation.Grabowski explains in 2015~(Henry, Professor of Economics, member of the faculty for the Health Sector Management Program, and Director of the Program in Pharmaceuticals and Health Economics at Duke University) "The Roles of Patents and Research And Development Incentives In Biopharmaceutical Innovation," Health Affairs, 2/2015~ JL ~b~ Secondly, a statistical analysis of MULTIPLE studies confirms that intellectual property protections are key to productive research and development. We warrant exactly how patent rights have a direct relationship to research and development.Cory '19~Stephen Ezell, vice president and global innovation policy @ ITIF, BS Georgetown School of Foreign Service. Nigel Cory, associate director covering trade policy @ ITIF, MA public policy @ Georgetown. "The Way Forward for Intellectual Property Internationally," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-25-2019, accessed 8-25-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally~~ HWICIPRs Strengthen InnovationIntellectual property rights power innovation. For instance, analyzing the level of intellectual property protections (via the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness reports) and creative outputs (via the Global Innovation Index) shows that counties with stronger IP protection have more creative outputs (in terms of intangible assets and creative goods and services in a nation's media, printing and publishing, and entertainment industries, including online), even at varying levels of development.46IPR reforms also introduce strong incentives for domestic innovation. Sherwood, using case studies from 18 developing | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - Theory - osourceTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SB | Judge: Keshav Dandu Interpretation: Debaters must disclose the affirmative constructive with highlighting at least 30 minutes prior to the round when asked on messenger.Violation – they don't~ss~1~ Evidence Ethics —- disclosure deters mis-cutting, power-tagging, abuse of brackets and ellipses, and plagiarism. Independent reason to vote you down because it promotes better norms about academic engagement—-debate is an academic environment and must ensure that we become fair scholars. Even if you don't lose on fairness in the round, you will lose in college if you violate academic ethics which establish a crucial real-world norm and outweighs any in-round impact. Also, if you aren't honest, we don't know what else you're lying about which means we don't know if your arguments are actually true since they can be misrepresented.2~ Quality engagement- Disclosure allows for in-depth preparation before the round and the tournament which allows debaters to effectively write case negs and arguments. Their model forecloses the chance to test their aff against a well-prepared opponent, diminishing the only unique benefits to debate. Only our interpretation allows for intricate debate and advocacy refinement through the process of in depth argumentation on the 1ac which makes debates better in the long term. Engagement outweighs and is a voter-all of the benefits of their role of the ballot relies on deliberation and rigorous contestation, but they have precluded our ability to engage in it which makes it a one sided monologue and link turns their arguments because it prevents the best possible conclusion. 4~ Small school inclusion – disclosure ensures equity of prepping resources.Bietz 10 Mike (Coach for Harvard-Westlake) "The Case for Public Case Disclosure." NFL Rostrum, Vol. 84, Issue 9. May 2010. https://nationalforensicleague.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/publications/05-201020Complete20Rostrum.pdf JW
Framing: You can't coopt any of the reasons why procedurals are bad in the context of the affirmative since I don't constrain your ability to read it– the contention is that this aff should've been read, just disclosed.Fairness above the K1~ Fairness is a prior question to effective dialogue – If fairness is bad writ large vote neg regardless of the flow because it's unfair2~ If the judge doesn't enforce fairness, none of your scholarship would pass since it would give them the unfair jurisdiction to reject it and vote you down. Even if they don't, rejecting fairness is a practice that would justify a bad norm, which all your arguments are predicated on anyways.3~ We can't compare or interact to find the best solution to oppression if the unfair nature of your arguments prevents me from strategizing. Fairness is an integral part of your solvency.4~ Unfair practices would make kids quit debate if they can't check it which means less people to spread your message to so the shell is a prior question.Every reason fairness is a voter is a reason you can't read substantive take-outs to the shell since it precludes your evaluation of them.Disclosure above the K1~ Out of round practices constrain what can be read in round2~ Lexically prior, they might indite the neg but I indite their months old practicesEdu- funded ny schoolsDTD- dta illogical, time skewNo RVI's or perf cons- illogical, baiting, if theory is bad and you vote on a turn to theory you are voting on theoryCI- intervention, race to bottom, collapses, yours vs bestTheory isn't violent – A~ I don't have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. Theory doesn't ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time. B~ Exclusion is inevitable – every role of the ballot excludes some arguments and even saying Theory bad excludes it – that means we should delineate ground along reciprocal lines, not abandon division altogether. Reading Theory isn't psychic violence – that was above, but especially if we're not going for it since reading Theory can be used to prevent aff shiftiness and make substance a viable option.No silencing DA - Theory is just like a disad or critique we've said a certain practice the aff took was bad and it would've been better had they done it differently not that they are bad debaters – just like the cap k says the aff engaged in some practice that reinforced capitalism and it would've been better if they had emphasized Marxism – impositions in some form are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder and needs link arguments – every disad link says the aff did something wrong and theres an implicit version of the aff that wouldn't have linkedTheory before the K – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can't say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn't given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn't answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don't know if they're valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Reject aff pre empts – not clearly delineated, impossible to know implications | 9/26/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/19/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
2/20/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
2/20/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/6/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/11/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/23/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
1/17/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
12/19/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
12/19/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
1/15/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
1/15/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
1/16/22 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
9/25/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
9/26/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
9/26/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
10/18/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/1/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/6/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
|