Stuyvesant Zen Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scarsdale | 2 | Bronx Science NS | Chianli Hang |
|
|
| |
| Scarsdale | 4 | Prospect ST | Ashwin Mathi |
|
|
| |
| Scarsdale | 6 | Solebury LM | Mariel Cruz |
|
|
| |
| Scarsdale | Octas | Princeton CB | Jack Quisenberry, Zach Siegel, Amy Nyberg |
|
|
| |
| Scarsdale | Quarters | Southlake Carroll SD | Derek Ying, Jonah Gentleman, Meera Sehgal |
|
|
| |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Scarsdale | 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science NS | Judge: Chianli Hang ac - contracts |
| Scarsdale | 4 | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ashwin Mathi ac - kant |
| Scarsdale | 6 | Opponent: Solebury LM | Judge: Mariel Cruz ac - kant |
| Scarsdale | Octas | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Zach Siegel, Amy Nyberg ac - teachers |
| Scarsdale | Quarters | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Derek Ying, Jonah Gentleman, Meera Sehgal ac - teachers |
| 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 |
ND - NC HobbesTournament: Scarsdale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Prospect ST | Judge: Ashwin Mathi Hobbes NCTo 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 recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike that's what the state has decided is just2: worker strikes actively defy the state in order to reach a personal goal which moves closer to the state of nature | 11/13/21 |
ND - NC LayTournament: Scarsdale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science NS | Judge: Chianli Hang FrameworkI negate the resolution Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee an unconditional right to strikeThe value is morality since ought indicates a moral obligationThe value criterion is maximizing expected well-being which means causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.There are two main reasons for this:First, Everyone does not like painful or emotionally harmful experiences, so naturally we should try to replace these things with good experiences.Second, Things like death and oppression are intuitively bad, and affect everyone, so we should try to prevent them.In summary, if I can prove to you that an unconditional right to strike would not have a good impact on the world, then you should vote for the negative in today's debate.Observation: as the resolution indicates, the affirmative must defend an unconditional right to strike. This means that the Affirmative must defend that anyone regardless of job or occupation has a fundamental right to strike.Merriam Webster ND, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconditional sid This means that the negative may agree that some strikes are good BUT that an unconditional right to strike would be bad. For example, the right to strike through protests would be fine but shooting up neighborhoods to bring attention to something would not be fine by the negative.Contention 1 is innovationGlobal tech innovation high now.Mercury News et al 6/4 ~Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, June 4, 2021, "Editorial: How America can Win the Global Tech War" https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/04/editorial-why-silicon-valley-needs-endless-frontier-bill/ gord0~ Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector.Hanasoge 16 ~Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; "The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn't specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/~~//SJWen Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector.Vynck et al 21 ~Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; "Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech," The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer/~~//SJWen Technological innovation solves every existential threat – which outweighs.Matthews 18 Dylan. Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University. 10-26-2018. "How to help people millions of years from now." Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good Contention 2 is HealthHospital Strikes are devastating to public health infrastructure and patient care and sky-rocket costs – hospital strikes are relatively low now but the Plan green-lights more aggressive Strike actions.Masterson 17 Les Masterson 8-15-2017 "Nursing strikes can cause harm well beyond labor relations" https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nursing-strikes-can-cause-harm-well-beyond-labor-relations/447627/ (Senior Managing Editor at Quinstreet)Elmer High Hospital Costs force closures – COVID puts them on the brink.Thompson 2-26 Dennis Thompson 2-26-2021 "Pandemic Is Hitting Hospitals Hard, Including Their Bottom Line" https://consumer.healthday.com/2-26-pandemic-is-hitting-hospitals-hard-including-their-bottom-line-2650625725.html (Healthday Reporter)Elmer Hospitals are the critical internal link for pandemic preparedness.Al Thobaity 20, Abdullelah, and Farhan Alshammari. "Nurses on the frontline against the COVID-19 pandemic: an Integrative review." Dubai Medical Journal 3.3 (2020): 87-92. (Associate Professor of Nursing at Taif University)SJDH | 11/13/21 |
ND - T NebelTournament: Scarsdale | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Derek Ying, Jonah Gentleman, Meera Sehgal Interpretation: the affirmative debater must support that a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of all workers to strikeViolation: they don't.The difference between existential bare plurals and generic bare plurals is that existential bare plurals can be true if the statement is true in a single instance, but generic bare plurals necessitate proving the statement in all instances.And, LAWs is a generic bare plural:~1~ The Contradiction Test: existential nouns allow for contradictions like "tigers are on the lawn, and tigers aren't on the lawn", but saying "a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike, and a just government ought not recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike" is nonsensical so it must be generic~2~ Counterfactual Implications: a generic statement like "dogs have four legs" implies that if Fido is a dog, then he has four legs. Saying "a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike" implies that if I am a worker, then a just government ought to recognize my right to strike, proving that it's genericStandards:~1~ Limits: Specifying any subset of workers allows for a functionally infinite number of affs, there are nearly infinite jobs and every one has different implications when strikes happen which explodes neg prep burden.~2~ Ground: Specifying a tiny subset of workers means the aff is too small to link into disads related to things like the economy or infrastructure, cuts off access to an entire subset of offense I can gain. Also lets you pick a subset that's super advantageous which makes it impossible for me to gain ground~3~ Arg Quality: Small affs are written and run for a single round to be as unpredictable as possible. Whole res affs are more predictable which incentivizes creative, nuanced argumentation.~4~ TVA: read a whole-res aff and run your offense as an advantage, allows topic research but grants me core disads. | 11/14/21 |
ND - T OSpecTournament: Scarsdale | Round: Octas | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Zach Siegel, Amy Nyberg Interpretation: Affirmatives may not over-specify the plan of the 1AC. To clarify, you may spec 1) Governments 2) Subset of rights or 3) Subset of who gets the right to strike | 11/14/21 |
ND - Theory Must not read TJFs and substantive justificationsTournament: Scarsdale | Round: Octas | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Jack Quisenberry, Zach Siegel, Amy Nyberg Interpretation: debaters cannot read both theoretical and substantive justifications for their framework if their opponent only read one type. | 11/14/21 |
SO - Innovation DATournament: Yale | Round: Triples | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Richard Li, Elias Altman, Reid Pinckard Pharma innovation high now – monetary incentive is the biggest factor.Swagel 21 Phillip L. Swagel, Director of the Congressional budget office 4-xx-2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Congressional Budget Office, https://www.cbo.goc/publication/57126~~#_idTextAnchor020 SJDA The aff crushes innovation in the pharma sector—-incentivizes them to focus on non-important issues.Glassman 21 ~Amanda; 5/6/21; Executive vice president and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington and London; "Big Pharma Is Not the Tobacco Industry," Barron, https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-pharma-is-not-the-tobacco-industry-51620315693~~ Justin Pharma Innovation prevents Extinction – checks new diseases.Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) Pharma spills-over – has cascading global impacts that are necessary for human survival.NAS 8 National Academy of Sciences 12-3-2008 "The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future Summary of a Workshop" Re-cut by Elmer | 9/19/21 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
11/13/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
11/13/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
11/14/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
11/14/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/17/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/18/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
| |
9/19/21 | mzen20@stuyedu |
|