Stuyvesant Zen Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | Byram EW | Justin Smith |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 5 | Strake VM | Zac Davis |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 4 | Valley RT | Abhilash Datti |
|
|
| |
| Yale | Triples | Durham BG | Richard Li, Elias Altman, Reid Pinckard |
|
|
| |
| asdf | Finals | asdf | asdf |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: Byram EW | Judge: Justin Smith AC imperialism |
| Yale | 5 | Opponent: Strake VM | Judge: Zac Davis AC Vaccination Diplomacy |
| Yale | 4 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Abhilash Datti AC Hegel |
| Yale | Triples | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Richard Li, Elias Altman, Reid Pinckard AC cap |
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 |
SO - NC HobbesTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram EW | Judge: Justin Smith To negate means "to deny the truth of" (Merriam Webster) so presumption and permissibility semantically negate. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate)====The metaethic is constructivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand how someone else thinks. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Ambiguity – everyone can assert their own claims to be true and refuse contestation – this means we always fight over who is correct. This is irresolvable because there is no mediator to adjudicate the dispute and tell who is correct – we just fight forever~2~ Self-Interest – everyone wants their truth claims to be true because it benefits them – this leads to conflict because we can't divide limited resources and have to compete with each other – terminates in death because neither of us want to concede to the otherThis state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; she is the ultimate ruler and arbitrator. It must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures.Therefore, the standard is adhering to the state's perspective.Impact Calculus: Only evaluate impacts to structural purpose –what you justify through doing the action. We can control what we justify but we can't control what we cause.Reject consequentialism: A) Normativity, moral theories that hold agents responsible for all consequences of their actions destroy motivation to be ethical because moral intentions can still lead to immoral consequences B) Infinite Regress, every consequence leads to another consequence ad infinitum which means under consequences every action has the same infinite impact and triggers permissibility.Prefer my standard additionally1. Moral Discourse- outside of the state there is no regulative authority to ensure that individuals are capable of engaging in the same moral language. For example, one party can think good means x and another thinks that good means y. The state clarifies this dispute by being an ultimate arbiter and declaring what is good and bad. This means that absent my standard, moral language makes no sense.2. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state basedmorality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it.3. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers, in the same vein the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with morality in general.Now negate –1: the state's perspective determines what is just so if the state decides not to reduce intellectual property protections that's what the state has decided is just | 9/17/21 |
SO - NC Hobbes v2Tournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Abhilash Datti To negate means "to deny the truth of" (Merriam Webster) so presumption and permissibility semantically negate. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate)====The metaethic is constructivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand how someone else thinks. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Ambiguity – everyone can assert their own claims to be true and refuse contestation – this means we always fight over who is correct. This is irresolvable because there is no mediator to adjudicate the dispute and tell who is correct – we just fight forever~2~ Self-Interest – everyone wants their truth claims to be true because it benefits them – this leads to conflict because we can't divide limited resources and have to compete with each other – terminates in death because neither of us want to concede to the otherThis state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; she is the ultimate ruler and arbitrator. It must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures.Therefore, the standard is adhering to the state's perspective.Impact Calculus: Only evaluate impacts to structural purpose –what you justify through doing the action. We can control what we justify but we can't control what we cause.Prefer my standard additionally1. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state basedmorality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it.2. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers, in the same vein the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with morality in general.3. TJFs – morality's a definition of the word 'ought' which means it can be evaluated as a topicality issue~a~ Resolvability – other debates create a mess of weighing and link turns, but using Hobbes is easily resolvable because it becomes a question of what the sovereign believes. Independently indicts their framework, we can't act on it if every action required endless consideration~b~ Political Education – politicians have to understand the social contract in order to know what powers they have and what they have to provide citizens, and debating about Hobbes helps us learn about that.Now negate –1: the state's perspective determines what is just so if the state decides not to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines then that's what the state has decided is just. | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC Hobbes v3Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake VM | Judge: Zac Davis To negate means "to deny the truth of" (Merriam Webster) so presumption and permissibility semantically negate. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate)====The metaethic is constructivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand how someone else thinks. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Ambiguity – everyone can assert their own claims to be true and refuse contestation – this means we always fight over who is correct. This is irresolvable because there is no mediator to adjudicate the dispute and tell who is correct – we just fight forever~2~ Self-Interest – everyone wants their truth claims to be true because it benefits them – this leads to conflict because we can't divide limited resources and have to compete with each other – terminates in death because neither of us want to concede to the otherThis state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; she is the ultimate ruler and arbitrator. It must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures.Therefore, the standard is adhering to the state's perspective.Impact Calculus: Only evaluate impacts to structural purpose –what you justify through doing the action. We can control what we justify but we can't control what we cause.Reject consequentialism: A) Normativity, moral theories that hold agents responsible for all consequences of their actions destroy motivation to be ethical because moral intentions can still lead to immoral consequencesPrefer my standard additionally1. Moral Discourse- outside of the state there is no regulative authority to ensure that individuals are capable of engaging in the same moral language. For example, one party can think good means x and another thinks that good means y. The state clarifies this dispute by being an ultimate arbiter and declaring what is good and bad. This means that absent my standard, moral language makes no sense.2. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state basedmorality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it.3. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers, in the same vein the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with morality in general.4. TJFs – morality's a definition of the word 'ought' which means it can be evaluated as a topicality issue~a~ Resolvability – other debates create a mess of weighing and link turns, but using Hobbes is easily resolvable because it becomes a question of what the sovereign believes. Independently indicts their framework, we can't act on it if every action required endless consideration~b~ Political Education – politicians have to understand the social contract in order to know what powers they have and what they have to provide citizens, and debating about Hobbes helps us learn about that.Now negate –1: the state's perspective determines what is just so if the state decides not to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines then that's what the state has decided is just. | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC Hobbes v4Tournament: Yale | Round: Triples | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Richard Li, Elias Altman, Reid Pinckard The metaethic is constructivism – truth is not absolute but rather created by individuals based on their own individual perspective. Prefer it~1~ Opacity – we can never access another person's perspective because we can never fully understand how someone else thinks. Every truth I create cannot be universalized because I can't guarantee that they will create the same truth because they do what they want~2~ Linguistics – Truth is constructed by language, which is completely arbitrary. Nothing tells me that a chair is a chair; I only assign it that name arbitrarily because I want to. Meaning can't be contained within language if we make it up ourselves, and truth doesn't exist absent language.But, the state of nature leads to infinite violence – competing truth claims means conflicts cannot be resolved. Two warrants:~1~ Self-Interest – everyone wants their truth claims to be true because it benefits them – this leads to conflict because we can't divide limited resources and have to compete with each other – terminates in death because neither of us want to concede to the otherThis state of nature is brutish and has no conception of morality because we don't have any unified truth to guide us, and thus outweighs on magnitude. The solution is the creation of the sovereign to mediate what is true and enforce the law; she is the ultimate ruler and arbitrator. It must eliminate all conflicts to bring peace to our violent natures.Therefore, the standard is adhering to the state's perspective.Impact Calculus: Only evaluate impacts to structural purpose –what you justify through doing the action. We can control what we justify but we can't control what we cause.Reject consequentialism: A) Normativity, moral theories that hold agents responsible for all consequences of their actions destroy motivation to be ethical because moral intentions can still lead to immoral consequences B) Infinite Regress, every consequence leads to another consequence ad infinitum which means under consequences every action has the same infinite impactPrefer my standard additionally1. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state basedmorality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it.2. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers, in the same vein the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with morality in general.Now negate –1: the state's perspective determines what is just so if the state decides not to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines then that's what the state has decided is just. | 9/19/21 |
SO - Theory Impact Justified Frameworks BadTournament: Yale | Round: Triples | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Richard Li, Elias Altman, Reid Pinckard Interpretation: Framework standards or role of the ballots must not be impact-justified. To clarify, debaters may not read standard texts that contain aspects of their offensive impacts in them. For example, if you read framing arguments that indicate that promote well-being is good, you cannot just read a standard of reducing disease, but must read a standard of promoting well-being.Violation: you indicate that things like violence and extinction are bad but your role of the ballot is about resisting capitalismStandards:1: Limits – there are infinite standards they can generate convoluted arguments for so any random argument counts as offense. Assist worker strikes, spread communist methodology, reduce capitalism are functionally consistent with the cards you read. Skews pre-round prep since there's no way for me to access the same non-existent lit base for your arguments, which is unfair2: Phil Ed: impact justified frameworks remove any incentive to develop a coherent, normatively justified framework and also makes phil debate impossible since there's no syllogism to answer. That outweighs because LD is uniquely about phil debate3: Clash - narrow criteria exclude relevant impacts. They can crowd out nearly 100 of the available offense by restricting the debate to a single impact which denies a substantial portion of the topic lit. That independently outweighs: debate is uniquely about clash which separates it from speech.TVA – read an aff that supports Jaeggi's moral theory about alienation, we still get to learn about why capitalism is bad but we do that through a normative ethical theory that is contestable, solves both of our offenseVoters:Fairness is a voter: 1) all argumentation assumes it'll be evaluated fairly which means it's a gateway issue to other layers 2) it's constitutive to debate, debate is a game where you vote for the better debater, not the better cheater 3) it controls the internal link to engagement, if debate was unfair nobody would participate in it.Education is a voter: 1) it's the only portable impact to debate, other impacts won't matter in 10 years 2) it's the reason why schools fund debate in the first placeDrop the debater ~1~ to deter future AC abuse ~2~ because my strat was already completely skewed by the one abusive practiceCompeting interps because reasonability invites a race to the bottom where debaters set lower brightlines to defend abuseNo RVIs – ~A~ Illogical – fairness is a burden – they can't win for following the rules. Logic outweighs because it's a prereq to argumentation ~B~ Incentivizes good theory debaters to run infinitely abusive strategies, bait theory, and win off the RVI every time ~C~ Chilling effect—chills theory because I'll be scared that they'll win off the RVI | 9/19/21 |
SO - Theory Round ReportsTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Abhilash Datti Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech.Violation: screenshot in the doc – they have one
Standards:1~ Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but independents are left in the dark so round reports are key to prep- they give you an idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it's an impact multiplier2~ Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs affs – helps compensate for kids who can't afford coaches to prep out affs.Fairness is a voter: all argumentation assumes it'll be evaluated fairly which means it's a gateway issue to other layersEducation is a voter: it's the only portable impact to debate, other impacts won't matter in 10 yearsDrop the debater ~1~ to deter future abuse ~2~ because my strat was already completely skewed by the one abusive practiceCompeting interps ~A~ reasonability invites a race to the bottom because debaters will justify increasingly greater abuse by setting lower brightlines ~B~ competing interps leads to better norm setting because it forces us to think about how to defend our norms as the best for debate ~C~ reasonability invites judge intervention because it's unclear what should be considered reasonable ~D~ reasonability collapses to competing interps because it relies on an offense-defense paradigmNo RVIs – ~A~ Illogical – fairness is a burden – they can't win for following the rules. ~B~ Incentivizes good theory debaters to run abusive strategies, bait theory, and win off the RVI1NC theory first - 1~ Abuse was self-inflicted- They started the chain of abuse and forced me down this strategy 2~ Norming- We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea since the shell was read earlier. Norming outweighs - It's the constitutive purpose of theory debating | 9/18/21 |
SO - Theory Spec IPTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Byram EW | Judge: Justin Smith Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in the 1AC.Four types of IP that are vastly different.Ackerman 17 ~Peter; Founder and CEO, Innovation Asset Group, Inc; "The 4 Main Types of Intellectual Property and Related Costs," Decipher; 1/6/17; https://www.innovation-asset.com/blog/the-4-main-types-of-intellectual-property-and-related-costs~~ Justin Violation:Negate:1~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what intellectual properties the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific IP DAs, IP PICs, and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing.CX can't resolve this and is bad because A~ Skews 6 min of prep and pre-round prep B~ They can lie and no way to check C~ Debaters can be shady during cx which wastes tons of time2~ Real World- policy makers will always specify what the object of change is. That outweighs since debate has no value without portable application. It also means zero solvency since the WTO, absent spec, can circumvent aff's policy since they can say they didn't know what was affected.This spec shell isn't regressive- it literally determines what the affirmative implements and who it affectsVoters:Fairness is a voter: all argumentation assumes it'll be evaluated fairly which means it's a gateway issue to other layersEducation is a voter: it's the only portable impact to debate, other impacts won't matter in 10 yearsDrop the debater ~1~ to deter future AC abuse ~2~ because my strat was already completely skewed by the one abusive practiceCompeting interps because reasonability invites a race to the bottom where debaters set lower brightlines to defend abuseNo RVIs – ~A~ Illogical – fairness is a burden – they can't win for following the rules. ~B~ Incentivizes good theory debaters to run abusive strategies, bait theory, and win off the RVI ~C~ Chilling effect—chills theory because I'll be scared that they'll win off the RVI1NC theory first - 1~ Abuse was self-inflicted- They started the chain of abuse and forced me down this strategy 2~ Norming- We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea since the shell was read earlier. Norming outweighs - It's the constitutive purpose of theory debating | 9/17/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/17/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
|