Scripps Ranch Sridharan Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loyola Invitational | 2 | Immaculate Heart SS | Ahuja, Ronak |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 4 | Strake Jesuit JW | Sinha, Abhinav |
|
|
| |
| Loyola Invitational | 5 | Byram Hills AK | Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| NBA | Finals | Golden State SC | Adam Silver |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Loyola Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak 1AC - Genomic Medicines Ahuja votes for Scripps Ranch AS (W) |
| Loyola Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav 1AC - Pandemics - AFC |
| Loyola Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC - Kant |
| NBA | Finals | Opponent: Golden State SC | Judge: Adam Silver 1AC - Cavaliers LJ |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 - ContactTournament: NBA | Round: Finals | Opponent: Golden State SC | Judge: Adam Silver FramingHey, I'm Agastya - the sovereign of Scripps Ranch High School LD Debate team and the world writ large. There are two implications:~1~ You must concede to me because of my status as the absolute authority.~2~ Any attempts to contact my being will be rejected because I have ascended above moral authority as the ideal robot-human – my subjectivity transcends comprehension. Kantian frameworks source ends off of extrinsically moral factors - but that collapses because I am the source of goodness.Contention 1My Royal Assistant's Email: agastyasridharan@gmail.comContention 21: InformationSO: September/OctoberND: November/DecemberJF: January/February | 9/4/21 |
GEN - K - EdelmanTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak The subject emerges through loss, unable to express its desires through language which produces a constitutive lack – desires from lack project fantasies of complete identity on queer bodies. The 1ACs investment in imaginary futures proliferates reproductive futurism and sustains the fantasy of the Child, which exists in a structural antagonism with queerness.Edelman 98 – Lee, Jan. 1998, is the Fletcher Professor of English Literature at Tufts University. He is the author of Transmemberment of Song: Hart Crane's Anatomies of Rhetoric and Desire (Stanford University Press, 1987, Published by: Ohio State University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20107133 This culminates in queer overkill – their futuristic, political discourse imposes a form of brutal, excessive violence that murders the life-form of the queer beyond the confines of death.Stanley 11 – Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 8-10 Thus, the roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best methodologically resists overkill. They can't weigh the case – if we win their starting point is anti-queer, don't let them leverage the endpoint of their representations.Vote negative to embrace the death drive – only an unwavering affirmation of queer negativity can collapse the symbolic organizing of society that requires the exclusion of queer bodies – a permutation is impossible they've picked optimism we endorse pessimism.Baedan 12 – Summer 2012, authors' manuscript, Baedan — journal of queer nihilism — issue one, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan~~#toc8 | 9/5/21 |
GEN - K - Kant HomophobicTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Their philosophy structurally excludes the queer body – focus on reason and universalizability structurally excludes homosexuality – this isn't an ad hom.Soble 3 – Alan Soble, The Monist 86:1 (Jan. 2003), pp. 55-89. Kant and Sexual Perversion Vote neg – they read morally repugnant arguments. Thus, the alternative is to drop the debater:1 – Accessibility – A~ It's a lexical prereq because you need people in debate for argumentation to exist. B~ All aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - 1AR HedgeTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Paradigm for 1AR shells and independent voters:1 – Reasonability – 1AR theory is crazy aff-biased because the 2AR gets to line-by-line every 2NR standard with new answers that never get responded to– reasonability checks 2AR sandbagging by preventing crazy abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.2 – DTA – They can blow up a blippy 20 second shell to 3 min of the 2AR while I have to split my time and can't preempt 2AR spin which necessitates judge intervention and means 1AR theory is irresolvable so you shouldn't stake the round on it.3 – No new 1AR theory paradigm issues – A~ the 1NC has already occurred with current paradigm issues in mind so new 1ar paradigms moot any theoretical offense | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - General PrincipleTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: The affirmative must not defend the resolution a general principle.Violation: They do – that was on the contention.Standards:1 – Topic Education – General principle moots topic education because it allows debaters to recycle generic arguments which deny the truth of everything.2 – Reciprocal burdens – proving a deductive argument is false only requires you win defense against one premise and proving an inductive argument is false is more difficult because of status quo bias. Our model solves because it eschews the idea that either side unilaterally carries the burden of proof, and requires both debaters to give an account of why their world is more desirable not principle.3 – Ground: It gives them the ability to shift out of all CPs by saying they don't disprove the general principle of the AFF which is bad – Good policymaking requires making comparisons between similar courses of action – saying that CPs are bad doesn't answer this because we should have to opportunity to argue that in round. CPs teach us to find the best policy possible – debate should teach us to be better decisionmakers because it's the only transferable skill to the rest of our lives, also controls the I/L to ground because they get infinite advocacies but I only get one. | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - Must Not Say No RVIs and 1AR TheoryTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: The affirmative must not claim they get 1AR theory as the highest layer and RVIs on NC theory.Violation: The UV.Standard is reciprocity – you already get access to the highest layer of the round, but I can't read theory because you'll just dump on it and anyway I'll just lose to infinite 1AR shells. | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - New Affs BadTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak Interpretation—the affirmative debater must disclose the plan text to the negative debater at least 30 minutes before the round begins. Disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message.Violation—they didn't, screenshots below:
Vote neg for prep and clash—two internal links—a) neg prep—4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics—30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative, internal link to fairness since I can't win without prep b) aff quality—plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn't inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, it should lose—this will answer the 1ar's claim about innovation—with 30 minutes of prep, there's still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can't check against the broader literature.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs education on reversibility – we can learn in future rounds, but we need theory for a fair round now. Education is a voter – it's why schools fund debate.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm, b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices. | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - OperationalizationTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak Our interpretation is the affirmative must defend the plan in addition to a method to operationalize the plan in the 1AC in the real world that is tied to the body and voice of the speaker – hold the line, CX and the 1AC prove there's no I-meet.Vote negative to promote knowledge production – their model of debate is a disembodied performance that detaches the self from the material – this proliferates the domination of hegemonic power structures. Knowledge production is a voting issue – it's the only terminal impact to debating, since our performance can change the lives of those outside the community.Campbell 97 – Fiona, members.tripod.com/FionaCampbell/speech_acts_on_problematising_empowerment.htm, 12-04-07 | 9/5/21 |
GEN - Theory - Spikes on TopTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: All AC spikes or preemptive theoretical framing issues/ROB must be read at the top of the affirmative's caseViolation: They were at the bottomThe standard is strat skew – I can't formulate my NC strategy until after the spikes are read because you could have several framing issues like 1AR theory paradigm, AFC, Theory incoherent, no neg fiat, or PICs bad. That moots 6 minutes of time I could be using to formulate an NC that best meets the spikes and engages with the aff. Strat skew is key to reciprocal fairness since you get to form your 1AR strat during my NC. Key to education since it leads to more specific clash with the aff. Scrolling to the bottom of the doc doesn't solve: some people don't flow off the doc and it forces me to miss the top part of the case while reading the underview.Paradigms – Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Drop the debater – a~ indicts the aff so drop the arg is drop the debater b~ deter future abuse Competing interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate. No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices. c~ Getting faster solves. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 9/5/21 |
SEPTOCT - Theory - CSATournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the whole resolution – then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy in the 1AC. (To clarify, you must have an author that states we should not do your aff, insofar as the aff is not a whole res phil aff)B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Fairness – This is a litmus test to determining whether your aff is fair –A~ Limits – there are infinite things you could defend outside the exact text of the resolution which pushes you to the limits of contestable arguments, even if your interp of the topic is better, the only way to verify if it's substantively fair is proof of counter-arguments. Nobody knows your aff better than you, so if you can't find an answer, I can't be expected to.2. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own viewpoints, as well as encouraging in depth-research about their own position. Having one also encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses.Paradigms – Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Drop the debater – a~ indicts the aff so drop the arg is drop the debater b~ deter future abuse. Competing interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate. c~ Eval theoretical paradigms after the 2N – key to prevent 2AR judge psychology and checks for infinite prep. No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices. c~ Getting faster solves. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive, it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 9/5/21 |
SEPTOCT - Theory - Spec ReductionTournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak Interpretation: The affirmative must specify the degree to which they reduce property rights in a delineated card in the 1AC.Violation: You don't.Standards – 1~ Stable advocacy – 1AR clarification delinks neg positions that prove why property rights are bad because its not what they defend – for example, a small reduction in property rights probably wouldn't link to the innovation DA, but a complete elimination would – wrecks neg ballot access and kills in depth clash – CX doesn't check since it kills 1NC construction pre-round. 2~ Real World – Policy-makers have to specify the mandates of the plan – also means zero solvency, absent spec, states can circumvent the aff's policy since there is no delineated way to enforce the what property rights are reduced. | 9/5/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/5/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
9/5/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
9/5/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
9/4/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
|