| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lexington | 1 | Scarsdale KS | Jeong-wan Choi |
|
|
| |
| i | 1 | love | prospect st |
|
|
| |
| princeton | 1 | scarsdale OL | rachel elias |
|
|
| |
| scarsdale | 2 | prince CB | tracy, brown |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Lexington | 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale KS | Judge: Jeong-wan Choi ac-kant |
| i | 1 | Opponent: love | Judge: prospect st scarsdale stuy |
| princeton | 1 | Opponent: scarsdale OL | Judge: rachel elias 1ac-kant |
| scarsdale | 2 | Opponent: prince CB | Judge: tracy, brown 1ac-lay |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - contact info PLEASE READTournament: i | Round: 1 | Opponent: love | Judge: prospect st | 12/3/21 |
JF KantTournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale KS | Judge: Jeong-wan Choi Agents must be practical reasoners –~1~ Regress – we can always ask why we should follow a theory, so they aren't binding because they don't have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it's the only thing we can follow~2~ Action Theory – every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason~3~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW rct st~ ~4~ Epistemology – ethics must begin a priori, meaning they can't be derived from our experience.~A~ Representations of space – we can only access our experiences if we can interpret the space around us, but that requires the a priori. Thinking of the absence of space is impossible – we can think of empty space but never the lack of space itself. Imagining space through a priori thoughts is the only way we can even begin to have a conception of interpreting experience; we need to be able to construct space through our minds.~B~ Separateness – if space is based on experience, it must be formed from objects separate to us outside of our reasoning abilities. But to represent objects as separate from us, we would already need to assume space exists in the first place to have a concept of "separateness," so to represent space as something separate from us would be incoherent.~C~ Uncertainty – every person has different experiences so we can't have a unified perspective on what is good if we each have different conceptions of it – even if we can roughly aggregate it's not enough because there'll always be a case when it fails so the framework o/w on probability.~D~ Is/Ought Gap – experience in the phenomenal world only tells us what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises within the noumenal world to make a moral theory.We have a unified perspective – If I say that 2+24, I understand not only that I know that 2+2=4, but that everyone around can arrive at the same conclusion too because they create practical syllogisms to justify their conclusion. But, willing a maxim that violates the freedom of others is a contradiction – that's bad. ==== Only a collective will that can have power over individuals can guarantee the enforcement of good maxims. Thus, the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will.To clarify, the framework does not value the ability to set any end, but rather the ability to decide which ends to pursue.Ripstein 1, (Arthur Ripstein, Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master's degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20., 2009, accessed on 8-18-2020, Harvard University Press, "Force and Freedom",) NP 8/4/16. rct st Impact calc –~1~ Only the omnilateral will can motivate action – it's external to wills of agents so it can obligate them all to follow certain rules – unilateral wills fail since they would involve one person coercing other people under their will and there would be no obligation to follow a person.~2~ Consequences fail – A) Induction Fails – You only know induction works because past experiences have told you it has, but that is in itself a form of induction, so you use induction to prove induction – that's circular B) Butterfly Effect – Every action has an infinite number of consequences that stem from it – me picking up a pen could cause nuclear war a hundred years down – you can't quantify the infinite amount of pain and pleasure to come C) Aggregation fails – everyone has different feelings of pain and pleasure, so you can't universalize that and say it's good – it's impossible to measure something that's completely subjective D) Culpability – any consequence can lead to another consequence so it's impossible to assign obligations since you can't pinpoint a specific actor that caused a consequence.Prefer additionally –~1~ Oppression is caused by arbitrary exclusion of others – only universalizability makes sure that 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. ~2~ Performativity – Argumentation presupposes one's own freedom to act – this means contestations of my framework prove it true. HoppeFrom the Economics of Laissez Faire to The Ethics of Libertarianism, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, The Ludwig von Mises Institute Auburn University ~3~ TJFs: A~ Kant is the best framework because people can make analytical arguments under it-helps small schools who can't do as much research and cut as many cards to still stand a chance without needing to prep out every DA or CP B~ Kant's ideas are more mainstream so they're easier to pick up than more obscure theories, meaning small school debaters can learn it themselves without having to grapple with complex phil that bigger schools have an easier time understanding due to more coaching and teammates.OffenseI defend "Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust."I'm willing clarify or specify whatever you want me to in CX if it doesn't force me to abandon my maxim. Check all interps in CX – I could've met them before the NC and abuse would've been solved.Property is an external right – it is something that we don't innately have a right to by virtue of existing, but acquire once we exercise our freedom. However, this is impossible when there is no state to create property divisions.Stilz 1 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st In outer space, there is no governing authority and thus claiming property imposes your will over others.Stilz 2 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st Underview~1~ 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. e) 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.2~ Extinction not first1. Repugnant and justifies ignoring important issues like oppression just because there's a one percent chance of extinction2. Proves that life has instrumental value, but no intrinsic value-means that it doesn't support util since they haven't proven why being alive is important morally3. Freezes action-an infinite number of things carry a risk of extinction, so we would be unable to do anything if we tried to avoid extinction i.e. me drinking water could cause extinction | 1/15/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
12/4/21 | hji40@stuyedu |
| |
12/3/21 | hji40@stuyedu |
|