Scarsdale Malik Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | James Logan ZW | Austin Broussard |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Fairmount Prep SV | Zaid Umar |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Harvard-Westlake CR | Peyton Reeves |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Harrison JC | Faizaan Dossani |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | Mission San Jose AA | Jacob Palmer |
|
|
| |
| The Goblet of Fire | 7 | Joe | Bob |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: James Logan ZW | Judge: Austin Broussard 1ac - Practical Reason |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Fairmount Prep SV | Judge: Zaid Umar 1ac - practical reason |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CR | Judge: Peyton Reeves 1ac - Practical Reason |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Faizaan Dossani 1ac - Kant |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | Opponent: Mission San Jose AA | Judge: Jacob Palmer 1ac - Kant |
| The Goblet of Fire | 7 | Opponent: Joe | Judge: Bob 1ac - joe |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0-Contact InfoTournament: The Goblet of Fire | Round: 7 | Opponent: Joe | Judge: Bob | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - AC - Practical ReasonTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Fairmount Prep SV | Judge: Zaid Umar 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.Violating freedom is non universalizable and thus causes a contradiction in conception.Engstrom ~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 the system of equal and outer freedom.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~ 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.OffenseI'll defend whole res.Affirm:~1~ Respecting agents – the right to strike gives workers more power over their freedom and forces companies to respect their dignity.Gourevitch (Alex Gourevitch, Norman E. Bowie is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. Until his retirement in 2009 he was Elmer L Andersen Chair of Corporate Responsibility and served in the departments of strategic management and of philosophy., June 2016, accessed on 10-4-2021, American Political Science Association, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", doi:10.1017/S1537592716000049)st *brackets for grammar* ~2~ Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions.Chima (Sylvester C Chima, 1Programme of Bio and Research Ethics and Medical Law, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine and School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 12-19-2013, accessed on 10-4-2021, PubMed Central (PMC), "Global medicine: Is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878318/~~#B64) ~3~ Act-omission distinctionStrikes are defined by Cambridge ~Striking.. . "strike". n.d. Cambridge English Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/strike. Accessed 10-28-2021~ to refuse to continue working because of an argument with an employer. about working conditions, pay levels, or job cuts~4~ Strikes are intrinsically an omission from working – we always have the freedom to omit from doing something otherwise the government would need to coerce us to work. We have the freedom to strike if its non-coercive.Bargaining Rights – because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "A Kantian Theory of Meaningful Work." Springer, 01 July 1998.~ LADI rct st The right to strike via unions corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining.Bowie ~Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective" Wiley Blackwell. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-063121173X.html~~ LADI rct st Underview:~1~ Presumption affirms:~A~ Presuming statements are false is impossible – we can't operate in the world if we can't trust anything we hear or we couldn't form a coherent strand of reasoning.~B~ NC is reactive so they strategically develop or conceded args – o/w on reversibility since losing the AC to an NC hijack or uplayer puts the aff at a 6min disad.~C~ You presume statements true unless proven false – If I tell you my name is Raza Malik, you believe me unless you have evidence to the contrary.~D~ They have a 13-7 rebuttal advantage and 2N collapse means they can brute force any layer and do more weighing. | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - AC - Practical Reason V2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: James Logan ZW | Judge: Austin Broussard | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - AC - Practical Reason V3Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CR | Judge: Peyton Reeves | 12/3/21 |
ND21 - NC - Practical Reason V4Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Thus the standard is consistency with the system of equal and outer freedom. 2 Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we include everyone equally. Farr 02 The attack on Kantian formalism began with Hegel’s criticism of the Kantian philosophy.14 The list of contemporary theorists who follow Hegel’s line of criticism is far too long to deal with in the scope of this paper. Although these theorists may approach the problem of Kantian formalism from a variety of angles, the spirit of their criticism is basically the same: The universality of the categorical imperative is an abstraction from one’s empirical conditions. Kant is often accused of making the moral agent an abstract, empty, noumenal subject. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kantian subject is an embodied, empirical, concrete subject. However, this concrete subject has a dual nature. Kant claims in the Critique of Pure Reason as well as in the Grounding that human beings have an intelligible and empirical character.15 It is impossible to understand and do justice to Kant’s moral theory without taking seriously the relation between these two characters. The very concept of morality is impossible without the tension between the two. By “empirical character” Kant simply means that we have a sensual nature. We are physical creatures with physical drives or desires. The very fact that I cannot simply satisfy my desires without considering the rightness or wrongness of my actions suggests that my empirical character must be held in check by something, or else I behave like a Freudian id. My empirical character must be held in check by my intelligible character, which is the legislative activity of practical reason. It is through our intelligible character that we formulate principles that keep our empirical impulses in check. The categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality that is constructed by the moral agent in his/her moment of self-transcendence. What I have called self-transcendence may be best explained in the following passage by Onora O’Neill: In restricting our maxims to those that meet the test of the categorical imperative we refuse to base our lives on maxims that necessarily make our own case an exception. The reason why a universilizability criterion is morally significant is that it makes our own case no special exception (G, IV, 404). In accepting the Categorical Imperative we accept the moral reality of other selves, and hence the possibility (not, note, the reality) of a moral community. The Formula of Universal Law enjoins no more than that we act only on maxims that are open to others also.16 O’Neill’s description of the universalizability criterion includes the notion of self-transcendence that I am working to explicate here to the extent that like self-transcendence, universalizable moral principles require that the individual think beyond his or her own particular desires. The individual is not allowed to exclude others as rational moral agents who have the right to act as he acts in a given situation. For example, if I decide to use another person merely as a means for my own end I must recognize the other person’s right to do the same to me. I cannot consistently will that I use another as a means only and will that I not be used in the same manner by another. Hence, the universalizability criterion is a principle of consistency and a principle of inclusion. That is, in choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. Affirm: 2 Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions. Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions. Strikes are defined by Cambridge Striking.. . “strike”. n.d. Cambridge English Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/strike. Accessed 10-28-2021 4 Strikes are intrinsically an omission from working – we always have the freedom to omit from doing something otherwise the government would need to coerce us to work. We have the freedom to strike if its non-coercive. Underview: A Presuming statements are false is impossible – we can’t operate in the world if we can’t trust anything we hear or we couldn’t form a coherent strand of reasoning. 2 1AR theory – a) AFF gets it because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible, b) drop the debater – the 1AR is too short for theory and substance so ballot implications are key to check abuse, c) no RVIs – they can stick me with 6min of answers to a short arg and make the 2AR impossible, d) competing interps – 1AR interps aren’t bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time. f) Fairness because debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education since it gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking. | 12/4/21 |
ND21 - NC - Practical Reason V6Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Mission San Jose AA | Judge: Jacob Palmer Thus the standard is consistency with the system of equal and outer freedom. 2 Solves oppression because it is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that we include everyone equally. Farr 02 The attack on Kantian formalism began with Hegel’s criticism of the Kantian philosophy.14 The list of contemporary theorists who follow Hegel’s line of criticism is far too long to deal with in the scope of this paper. Although these theorists may approach the problem of Kantian formalism from a variety of angles, the spirit of their criticism is basically the same: The universality of the categorical imperative is an abstraction from one’s empirical conditions. Kant is often accused of making the moral agent an abstract, empty, noumenal subject. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kantian subject is an embodied, empirical, concrete subject. However, this concrete subject has a dual nature. Kant claims in the Critique of Pure Reason as well as in the Grounding that human beings have an intelligible and empirical character.15 It is impossible to understand and do justice to Kant’s moral theory without taking seriously the relation between these two characters. The very concept of morality is impossible without the tension between the two. By “empirical character” Kant simply means that we have a sensual nature. We are physical creatures with physical drives or desires. The very fact that I cannot simply satisfy my desires without considering the rightness or wrongness of my actions suggests that my empirical character must be held in check by something, or else I behave like a Freudian id. My empirical character must be held in check by my intelligible character, which is the legislative activity of practical reason. It is through our intelligible character that we formulate principles that keep our empirical impulses in check. The categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality that is constructed by the moral agent in his/her moment of self-transcendence. What I have called self-transcendence may be best explained in the following passage by Onora O’Neill: In restricting our maxims to those that meet the test of the categorical imperative we refuse to base our lives on maxims that necessarily make our own case an exception. The reason why a universilizability criterion is morally significant is that it makes our own case no special exception (G, IV, 404). In accepting the Categorical Imperative we accept the moral reality of other selves, and hence the possibility (not, note, the reality) of a moral community. The Formula of Universal Law enjoins no more than that we act only on maxims that are open to others also.16 O’Neill’s description of the universalizability criterion includes the notion of self-transcendence that I am working to explicate here to the extent that like self-transcendence, universalizable moral principles require that the individual think beyond his or her own particular desires. The individual is not allowed to exclude others as rational moral agents who have the right to act as he acts in a given situation. For example, if I decide to use another person merely as a means for my own end I must recognize the other person’s right to do the same to me. I cannot consistently will that I use another as a means only and will that I not be used in the same manner by another. Hence, the universalizability criterion is a principle of consistency and a principle of inclusion. That is, in choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. Affirm: 2 Coercion – coercion in the workplace treats agents as a means to an ends by overriding suitable working conditions. Strikes allow workers to protest against unfair working conditions. Strikes are defined by Cambridge Striking.. . “strike”. n.d. Cambridge English Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/strike. Accessed 10-28-2021 4 Strikes are intrinsically an omission from working – we always have the freedom to omit from doing something otherwise the government would need to coerce us to work. We have the freedom to strike if its non-coercive. Underview: A Presuming statements are false is impossible – we can’t operate in the world if we can’t trust anything we hear or we couldn’t form a coherent strand of reasoning. 2 1AR theory – a) AFF gets it because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible, b) drop the debater – the 1AR is too short for theory and substance so ballot implications are key to check abuse, c) no RVIs – they can stick me with 6min of answers to a short arg and make the 2AR impossible, d) competing interps – 1AR interps aren’t bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time. f) Fairness because debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education since it gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking. | 12/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/21/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
11/21/21 | dhuang24@scarsdaleschoolsorg |
| |
12/4/21 | nars786@icloudcom |
| |
12/4/21 | nars786@icloudcom |
|