Stuyvesant Zen Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scarsdale | 1 | Southlake Carroll AR | Shamika Augustin |
|
|
| |
| Scarsdale | 3 | Northland Christian LB | Meera Sehgal |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Strake HZ | Curtis Chang |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | Holy Trinity Episcopal BL | Amulya Natchukuri |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 6 | Houston Memorial DX | Nathaniel Tran |
|
|
| |
| asdf | Finals | asdf | asdf |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Scarsdale | 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll AR | Judge: Shamika Augustin ac - prag |
| Scarsdale | 3 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Meera Sehgal ac - prag |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Curtis Chang AC Prag |
| Yale | 3 | Opponent: Holy Trinity Episcopal BL | Judge: Amulya Natchukuri AC prag |
| Yale | 6 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Nathaniel Tran AC Prag |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: asdf | Round: Finals | Opponent: asdf | Judge: asdf | 9/17/21 |
ND - AC PragTournament: Scarsdale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll AR | Judge: Shamika Augustin Prag ACFramingI value morality.Prefer contextualism: ethics only arises as a solution to problems identified in relation to our context~1~ describes real world judgements: doctors make prescriptions after diagnosing issues, any a priori judgement is informed by what we understand of our contexts.~2~ solves skep: skep claims that we don't know whether moral judgements are infinitely true, but we need solutions to solve problems in our specific context.And, deliberation and testing are key to ensuring that ethics can respond to changing circumstancesSerra 09 ~Juan Pablo Serra. What Is and What Should Pragmatic Ethics Be? Some Remarks on Recent Scholarship. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PRAGMATISM AND AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY. 2009. Francisco de Vitoria College, Humanities Department, Faculty member.~ The standard and role of the ballot is to endorse consistency with democratic deliberation. It's key to ensuring students can keep up with updated theories used in practice.Taatila and Raij 12 ~TAATILA, V., and RAIJ, K. (2012). Philosophical Review of Pragmatism as a Basis for Learning by Developing Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(8), 831–844. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00758.~ cwaz Deliberation is key to the evaluation of experiencePappas 09 (Gregory Pappas is a professor of Philosophy at Texas AandM and is the President of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy (SAAP) for 2016-2018. Dr. Pappas is a long-standing and distinguished member of the SAAP, known for his leadership within SAAP, and, with his, his contributions within the society and in the profession to Pragmatism, Classical American Philosophy, Ethics, and Latin American Philosophy. "What Difference Can "Experience" Make to Pragmatism?" EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PRAGMATISM AND AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY. 2009. http://lnx.journalofpragmatism.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Pappas.pdf) WW JA 1/9/18 Other ethical theories are founded on minimalistic criteria, ours resolves this by using these criteria to better inform our judgments, LaFollete 2K :Employs criteria, but is not criterial. The previous discussions enable us to say more precisely why pragmatists reject a criterial view of morality. Pragmatism's core contention that practice is primary in philosophy rules out the hope of logically prior criteria. Any meaningful criteria evolve from our attempt to live morally – in deciding what is the best action in the circumstances. Criteria are not discovered by pure reason, and they ~which~ are not fixed. As ends of action, they are always revisable. As we obtain new evidence about ourselves and our world, and as our worlds changes, we find~s~ that what was appropriate for the old environment may not be conducive to survival in the new ~world~ one. A style of teaching that might have been ideal for one kind institution (a progressive liberal arts college) at one time (the 60s) may be wholly ineffective in another institution (a regional state university) at another time (the 80s). But that is exactly what we would expect of an evolutionary ethic. Neither could criteria be complete. The moral world is complex and changeable. No set of criteria could give us univocal answers about how we should behave in all circumstances. If we cannot develop an algorithm for winning at chess, where there are only eighteen first moves, there is no way to develop an algorithm for living, which has a finitely large number of "first moves." Moreover, while the chess environment (the rules) stays constant, our natural and moral environments do not. We must adapt or fail. While there is always one end of chess — the game ends when one player wins – the ends of life change as we grow, and as our environments change. Finally, we cannot resolve practical moral questions simply by applying criteria. We do not make personal or profession decisions by applying fixed, complete criteria. Why should we assume we should make moral decisions that way? Appropriates insights from other ethical theories Nonetheless, there is a perfectly good sense in which a pragmatic ethic employs what we might call criteria, but their nature and role dramatically differ from that in a criterial morality (Dewey 1985/1932) . Pragmatic criteria are not external rules we apply, but are tools we use in making informed judgements. They embody learning from previous action, they express our tentative efforts to isolate morally relevant features of those actions. These emergent criteria can become integrated into our habits, thereby informing the ways that we react to, think about, and imagine our worlds and our relations to others. This explains why pragmatists think other theories can provide guidance on how to live morally. Standard moral theories err not because they offer silly moral advice, but because they misunderstand that advice. Other moral theories can help us isolate (and habitually focus on) morally relevant features of action. And pragmatists take help wherever they can get it. Utilitarianism does not provide an algorithm for deciding how to act, but it shapes habits to help us "naturally" attend to the ways that our actions impact others. Deontology does not provide a list of general rules to follow, but it sensitizes us to ways our actions might promote or undermine respect for others. Contractarianism does not resolve all moral issues, but it sensitizes us to the need for broad consensus. That is why it is mistaken to suppose that the pragmatist makes specific moral judgements oblivious to rules, principles, virtues, and the collective wisdom of human experience. The pragmatist absorbs these insights into her habits, and thereby shapes how she habitually respon~se~ds, and how she habitually deliberates when deliberation is required. This also explains why criterial moralities tend to be minimalistic. They specify minimal sets of rules to follow in order to be moral. Pragmatism, on the other hand, like virtue theories, is more concerned to emphasize exemplary behavior – to use morally relevant features of action to determine the best way to behave, not the minimally tolerable way. Prefer: 1~ Self-justification: To question against deliberation is deliberation which proves that it's constitutive to us as agents. Two impacts:A~ Solves infinite regress - frameworks are only applicable if they unify and guide action, all of agency is unified by deliberation on what course of action to take next.B~ Bindingness – morality must prevent agents from opting out– we solve by appealing to deliberation as a constitutive element of agency2~ Explanatory coherence – we don't automatically know what things are good or bad; we first deliberate on instances of violence to develop rules that let us consistently condemn these instances. Prereq to other theories, there's never a complete certainty so we must deliberate to break down outdated habits.3~ Epistemic Reliability: disagreement is rife in the squo so most theories are wrong - prefer relative reliability. The law of large numbers proves when we test more we get progressively more accurate results so when we test theories under this fw we'll get the best calculus.A~ Even if my framework is wrong it's non-unique we assume every theory is wrong – if ours is more reliable, independent of the actual framework it is truer on the higher epistemic layer.B~ Other advantages are non-unique – through deliberation we take other premises into practice, if a theory is true it'll become a habit through deliberation.C~ Serves as a tiebreaker – continued deliberation is necessary to resolve competing methods, otherwise we don't know which to prefer which freezes action4~ Pragmatic testing is k2 social change, historically used to break through white supremacist biases in order to bring about abolition.Elizabeth Anderson 15 ~I am Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. I teach courses in ethics, social and political philosophy, political economy, philosophy of the social sciences, and feminist theory. My research focuses on democratic theory, equality in political philosophy and American law, racial integration, the ethical limits of markets, theories of value and rational choice (alternatives to consequentialism and economic theories of rational choice), the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey, social epistemology, and feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. I am currently working on the history of egalitarianism, with a special focus on the social epistemology of moral learning, taking the history of abolitionism as a central case study. I designed and was the first Director of UM's Program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.~, "Moral Bias and Corrective Practices: A Pragmatist Perspective", presidential address delivered at the one hundred twelfth Central Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association on 20 Feb 2015, BE OffenseI affirm the resolution: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. I defend it as a general principle, so spec is irrelevant but I'll spec the following, anything else must be checked in cx.Oxford defines just as "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.", recognize as "acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.", and unconditional as "not subject to any conditions."1: Collective bargaining – worker strikes are effective in facilitating bargaining between employers and employees, which is a form of deliberation. Government support is key to protecting negotiations.Bahn, 19 Kate Bahn, 8-29-2019, "The once and future role of strikes in ensuring U.S. worker power," Equitable Growth, https://equitablegrowth.org/the-once-and-future-role-of-strikes-in-ensuring-u-s-worker-power/ 2: Labor unions are ethical communities and spaces of deliberation. The aff is key to promoting those – workers will be comfortable joining these unions only after the government recognizes their legitimacy and it doesn't cost workers their jobs.Youngdahl 09 Jay Youngdahl, "Solidarity First", New Labor Forum, winter 2009, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/76089/Compa71_Should_Labor_Defend_Worker_Rights_as_Human_rights.pdf Underview~1~ aff theory and metatheory is legit else the neg gets away with infinite NC abuse. It's drop the debater – the 2AR is too short to win theory and substance simultaneously. Competing interps and no RVIs – else the 6 minute 2NR dump on reasonability or the RVI is unbeatable~2~ Presumption and permissibility affirm: ~A~ We assume statements are true unless we're given reason otherwise: if I told you my name is Maxwell you would believe it. ~B~ We are psychologically biased toward doing nothing, which means if we came to a stalemate that's because I was the better debater. ~C~ We couldn't do anything if we didn't trust others in what we were told, means trust is necessary and if we're at a stalemate you should trust that the res is true~3~ Aff gets RVIs on counterinterps ~A~ The 2N has the option of going for either substance or theory with the layer I undercover, the RVI forces the 2N go for theory ~B~ The 2AR is the shortest speech which means I need to be able to collapse to the highest layer otherwise I have to beat back every layer in 3 min ~C~ Neg gets T so give an RVI to rectify reciprocity of opportunity4~ utilitarianism fails:~A~ There's always infinite pleasure and pain in the universe—util is incoherent since we can't add or subtract from that..Bostrom '08 (Bostrom, Nick ~Professor at University of Oxford, director of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, PhD from London School of Economics~. The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics. 2008. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/infinite.pdf) ~B~ End states aren't good in themselves since goodness is indexed – no way to aggregate these interests.Geach 56 ~C~ Aggregation is impossible – multiple chemicals in the brain make me happy, so there's no way to compare or weigh between them.~D~ Evolution explains our evaluative judgements, which leaves no room for independent moral facts.Street '6 ~Sharon Street, phil prof at NYU, "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value, Philosophical Studies (2006) 127:109-166~ AG | 11/13/21 |
SO - AC PragTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Curtis Chang | 9/18/21 |
SO - AC Prag v2Tournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: Holy Trinity Episcopal BL | Judge: Amulya Natchukuri | 9/18/21 |
SO - AC Prag v3Tournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Houston Memorial DX | Judge: Nathaniel Tran | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/13/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
|