Tournament: Any | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: any Please meet the interp: Interp: Debaters must disclose a video of them doing the Macarena dance 5 minutes before the round on the 2021-2022 LD NDCA Wiki under their name and school.
Tournament: Any | Round: Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any 0 - Information 1 - Generics 2 - Topic stuff
SO - Sep/Oct ND - Nov/Dec JF - Jan/Feb
10/1/21
1 - Academic Terrorism K
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 6 | Opponent: Samamish LW | Judge: Johnathan Hsu I love this K
12/4/21
1 - Academic Terrorism K v2
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland AR | Judge: Faizaan Dossani I am an academic terrorist.
The academy co-opts any radical movement by keeping it in books- we argue and argue about what would work but never create change. The academy is a graveyard where social movements go to die, their AC will face the same fate. The alternative is to inject the aff with a radical defeat, one that will make them see they can never create change in the lens of debate. This is the only way we can escape the academy. Occupied UC Berkeley, 11-18-2009, "The Necrosocial", Anti-Capital Projects, https://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/cohn
Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like the university just like the state just like the economy manages our social death, translating what we once knew from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social conflict. Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement. When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money. He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death. He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether—that is, meaning is ripped from action. Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: to perpetually deliberate, the endless fleshing-out-of—when we push the boundaries of this form they quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us: the chancellor’s congratulations, the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assembly—there is no fight against the administration here, only its own extension. Each day passes in this way, the administration on the look out to shape student discourse—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. It becomes banal, thoughtless. So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two, how close to being this or that, how far? This accumulation is our shared history. This accumulation—every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreak—is a muted, but desirous life. A dead but restless and desirous life. The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning. As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death. Social death is, of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity. A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which our feet are planted. Yes, the university is a graveyard, but it is also a factory: a factory of meaning which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property). Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless demands. Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard– así es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity, equality, democracy. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the university’s ghosts, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs, given their book titles, their citations. This is our gothic—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subcultures—and thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality translates to a value of domination. We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others. It should never feel terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this same dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. We know their values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of course, and in this moment of practiced theater—the fight between the university and its own students—we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by the very institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for them to adhere to their values. What many have learned again and again is that these institutions don’t care for those values, not at all, not for all. And we are only beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. The values create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in general. They sell the practice through the image. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice. In this crisis the Chancellors and Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university economically and socially—which is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation. Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we are willing to play, how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Every institution has of course our best interest in mind, so much so that we’re willing to pay, to enter debt contracts, to strike a submissive pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the workplace to pay back those debts. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a function of war. War contains the ability to create a new frame, to build a new tension for the agents at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. It is November 2009. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures and self-propelled, unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead. Talk to your friends, take over rooms, take over as many of these dead buildings. We will find one another.
1/15/22
1 - CT Warming Good
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Skylar Harris ERROR
11/5/21
1 - Comparative Worlds ROTB
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Grant Brown Use comparative worlds 1- Their rotb collapses- we need to figure out if the world post aff is better for xyz before affirming 2- Real world-~--Comp worlds forces advocating for real world policies which are best for policy education. Comes first, it's the purpose of debate and the only way debate spills over to real life.
Quick theory heg here too- 1ar theory must be reasonability and dta a) 2ar responses are always new which means the judge must intervene so don’t stake the round on it, it also means CIs as a model doesnt make sense for 1ar theory b) dta solves your infinite abuse arguments
12/4/21
1 - Determinism vs Util
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Malyugina, Emmiee Hijack - Util triggers determinism 1 Induction- if x action leads to y result then x action must be influenced by prior action which means a causal chain of events structure my action rather than my will 2 Focus on end states necessitates determinism because scientific models assume x will happen if y – anything else triggers permissibility 3 Psychology- Neuroscience has demonstrated that our internal cognition is deterministic. Make them provide a counter study- you shouldn’t trust the word of a high-schooler about neuroscience Butkus Matthew A. Butkus(Professor in the department of Philosophy at McNeese State University, PhD - Health Care Ethics Duquesne University, MA – Philosophy Duquesne University). “Free Will and Autonomous Medical Decision-Making.” Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics. Volume 3, Issue 1. Pg 113-114. March 2015. Accessed 4/4/20. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89a4/924e0111035dbda63d61631a169c654a04fa.pdfRecut Houston Memorial DX from BHPE Psychology and neuroscience... agent as a whole. I defend the squo and that negates 1 Actions are predetermined which means we aren’t culpable for actions we don’t take
10/8/21
1 - Guerilla Linguistics
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista RD | Judge: Clark, Quentin Text – (the plan but in Yiddish) To Clarify, the text does not mean only Yiddish is accepted, rather there should be a diversity in language usage that’s not English The normalization of English as the language of all leads to an in-group/out-group that drive racial violence Rosa et al 17 Rosa, Jonathan, and Nelson Flores. "Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective." Language in society 46.5 (2017): 621-647. (Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics and Associate Professor in the Educational Linguistics Division)Elmer Similar to Bucholtz and Hall's (2005) approach to identity and interaction, we are interested in how processes of raciolinguistic enregisterment emblematize particular linguistic features as authentic signs of racialized models of personhood. This is found not only in sociolinguistic accounts of the features that compose categories such as ‘African American English’ (Green 2002) or ‘Chicano English’ (Fought 2003), but also popular stereotypes and modes of linguistic appropriation such as ‘Mock Spanish’ (Hill 2008), ‘Mock Asian’ (Chun 2004), ‘Hollywood Injun English’ (Meek 2006), and ‘linguistic minstrelsy’ (Bucholtz and Lopez 2011). In each of these cases, minute features of language, including grammatical forms, prosodic patterns, and morphological particles, are emblematized as sets of signs that correspond to racial categories. Crucially, as Meek (2006) demonstrates, these forms need not correspond to empirically verifiable linguistic practices in order to undergo racial emblematization. Moreover, as Lo and Reyes (2009) point out, the imagination of groups such as Asian Americans as lacking a distinctive racialized variety of English analogous to African American English or Chicano English, must be interrogated based on the racial logics that organize stereotypes about and societal positions of different racial groups on the one hand, and perceptions of their language practices on the other. Specifically, Lo and Reyes argue that racial ideologies constructing Asian Americans as model minorities who approximate whiteness are linked to language ideologies constructing Asian Americans as lacking a racially distinctive variety of English. In related work, Chun (2016:81) shows how emblematized Mock Asian forms such as ‘ching-chong’ are located across ‘the important boundary between ‘Oriental talk’ and English’, which sustains Asian Americans alternately as model minorities and forever foreigners. Thus, we must carefully reconsider seemingly ‘distinctive’ and ‘nondistinctive’ language varieties alike, by analyzing the logics that position particular racial groups and linguistic forms in relation to one another. That is, no language variety is objectively distinctive or nondistinctive, but rather comes to be enregistered as such in particular historical, political, and economic circumstances. The performance of the 1NC is a form of Code Switching that develops cultural agency and allows for Jewish identity-building- Jews aren’t just evil money gremlins that run the banks - we are real people Duan, Carlina. " The Space Between: An analysis of code-switching within Asian American poetry as strategic poetic device"(English Honors) AND" Here I Go, Torching"(Creative Writing Honors). Diss. 2015. (BA in Honors English from the University of Michigan)Elmer modified cohn In an interview with Women’s Review of Books literary magazine, Hong further discussed the strategic role of translation as a form of linguistic activism within her poetic work. When asked why she does not include translations from Korean to English within her own poetry, Hong said: “I wanted to open up these schisms, to emphasize that memory, the filtering of human experience into poetry, is often fractured and not transparent, especially experiences which have always been bisected and undercut by two languages.” She added, “I think I want to debunk the idea of easy translation—whether it be the idea of literal translation or, as I said before, the translating of one’s experience into poetry” (Hong 2002a, 15). Hong’s intentional decision to leave out English translations in her poetry creates a power dynamic between speaker and reader of the poem. Not only are “easy” translations dismantled and withheld from the reader, but, according to Hong, codeswitching — without translation — also more accurately reflects her personal experiences of cultural and linguistic movement. Hong points out that human experiences and the world of memory, especially for bilingual speakers, are “not transparent” — not captured neatly by one language, but rather, “bisected” by the complexities of belonging to two (or more) languages, implying a movement between multiple spaces. Scholars describe poetic code-switching in this way as a navigation of power. Literary scholar Benzi Zhang argues that code-switching makes apparent different levels of cultural knowledge for speaker and reader: “The insertion of … foreign words effectively renders Asian sensibilities into English and signifies different positions of cultural agency” (Zhang 131). Building upon this idea of cultural agency, I argue that Hong uses Korean to consciously expose themes of exoticism and racial stereotyping that readers themselves may be (consciously or unconsciously) participating in. As a result, Hong creates agency for her speaker through critiquing culturally appropriative behavior, in addition to an agency in knowledge; Hong’s speaker can access cultural understanding that her readers do not have. Yet, Hong does more than negotiate questions of audience access; she uses code-switching to reflect her speaker’s lived experiences of Korean-American identity, grappling with multiple languages and cultural codes. In “An Introduction to Chinese-American and Japanese American Literatures,” Jeffrey Chan et al. writes, “The minority experience does not yield itself to accurate or complete expression on the white man’s language” (qtd. Zhang 137). As Chang et al. suggest, code-switching embeds itself as a natural part of the “minority experience,” and is documented as such in Hong’s poems. Thus, the poems not only act as social critique of exoticization, but further inhabit the embodied experiences of Korean-American female identities living in the U.S. — which, as Hong reveals, are complicated experiences of rage, agency, celebration, and shifting power dynamics. Critics who have reviewed Hong’s work, such as Jan Clausen, have raised questions about the effect of Hong’s play with translation. Clausen, in a review titled “The poetics of estrangement,” published through the Women’s Review of Books, writes of Hong’s collection Translating Mo’um: “Hong deftly dismantles the romance of language as homeland, with results especially unnerving for the non-Korean-speaking reader” (Clausen 15). According to Clausen, Hong’s work with code-switching subverts traditional notions of the ‘native tongue’ as representative of “homeland,” dismantling what a reader may expect of a Korean American author: that she use Korean language to specifically discuss her ethnic culture as a hyphenated American. In other words, Hong’s code-switches function as intentional poetic protest against the reader’s expectations of the relationship between multilingual text and ethnic identity. As Clausen points out, such readings may anticipate that mother tongue is only introduced to speak about cultural difference or history, rather than used additionally as formal poetic device. In this chapter, I reveal Hong’s awareness of Korean language and code-switching as tools in identity-construction. Rather than allow others to shape her identity for her, she remains dominant in shaping her identity — and her agency — for herself. “Hitler was right” - my people are being killed as decades-old antisemitic stereotypes are repopularized - we are dehumanized as the other Breslow 21, Jason Breslow May 24, 2021 “Officials Say Hate Crimes Against Jews Are Growing In The Aftermath Of Gaza Violence” https://www.npr.org/2021/05/24/999790233/officials-say-hate-crimes-against-jews-are-growing-in-the-aftermath-of-gaza-violcohn In Skokie, Ill., it was a shattered window at a synagogue. In Bal Harbour, Fla., it was four men yelling, "Die Jew," at a man in a skullcap, then threatening to rape his wife and daughter. And in Midtown Manhattan, it was a group of people attacking a Jewish man in the middle of the street in broad daylight. From California to New York, a wave of antisemitic attacks has broken out in communities over the last two weeks, leaving officials in law enforcement and government scrambling to confront the domestic ripple effects of the recent outbreak in violence between Israel and Hamas. The violence and abhorrent rhetoric has come both in person and online. The Anti-Defamation League said that in the week after the fighting erupted, it received 193 reports of possible antisemitic violence, up from 131 a week earlier. On Twitter, the group said, it found more than 17,000 tweets using variations of the phrase "Hitler was right" between May 7 and 14. "We are witnessing a dangerous and drastic surge in anti-Jewish hate," the group's CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, said in a statement last week just ahead of the cease-fire announced between Israel and Hamas. He added: "To those who choose to indulge in age-old antisemitic tropes, exaggerated claims, and inflammatory rhetoric, it has consequences: attacks in real life on real people targeted for no other reason than they are Jewish. This is antisemitism, plain and simple. And it's indisputably inexcusable in any context." A cease-fire on Friday brought an end, however tenuous, to fighting that left more than 230 Palestinians dead in Gaza, and killed at least 12 people in Israel. Despite the break in violence, several of the nation's most prominent Jewish organizations are warning that repercussions for Jews in the United States could be long-lasting. "We fear that the way the conflict has been used to amplify antisemitic rhetoric, embolden dangerous actors and attack Jews and Jewish communities will have ramifications far beyond these past two weeks," said a letter sent to President Biden on Friday signed by the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Orthodox Union and the women's group Hadassah. The letter called on Biden, who helped broker the cease-fire, "to speak out forcefully against this dangerous trend and stand alongside the Jewish community in the face of this wave of hate before it gets any worse." Amnesty International issued a similar call to condemn the violence, saying antisemitism attacks "the very notion of universal human rights." "Intimidating worshipers at synagogues, defacing the Star of David, and using images and words that invoke antisemitic tropes is appalling and abusive, and when done in the name of protesting the actions of the Israeli government, belie the perpetrator's motives and do nothing to advance human rights," Amnesty's executive director, Paul O'Brien, said in a statement. Biden denounced the violence against the Jewish community in a Twitter post Monday, calling it "despicable." "I condemn this hateful behavior at home and abroad — it's up to all of us to give hate no safe harbor," Biden said. The surge in violence has prompted hate crime investigations in multiple states. In New York City, where police are stepping up their presence in Jewish communities, authorities are investigating Thursday's attack near Times Square as a hate crime. They are also investigating a separate case in which a 55-year-old woman was injured by what police described as an "explosive device." "The anti-Semitism we're seeing across our country isn't in isolation and isn't just a few incidents," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted Friday. "It's part of a horrible and consistent pattern. History teaches us we ignore that pattern at our own peril." In Los Angeles, authorities say they are investigating an attack on Jewish diners outside a sushi restaurant by passersby who were reportedly seen wearing Palestinian flags and heard on video shouting, "F* you," and "You guys should be ashamed of yourselves." The shouting soon turned violent, devolving into kicking and punching. Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, condemned the attack, telling the Los Angeles Times the attackers "did not represent our community." "They did not represent any of our organizations, and they definitely do not represent the Palestinian cause that we feel is just," he said. The surge in antisemitic incidents comes at a moment when such attacks were already elevated. In 2019, the ADL recorded more than 2,100 cases of assault, vandalism and harassment against Jews across the U.S., the most since tracking began in 1979. In 2020, the number was the third-highest on record, Greenblatt told The Washington Post, even as coronavirus shutdowns kept millions of Americans at home. The latest uptick follows a familiar pattern of antisemitic hate crimes in the aftermath of violent episodes between Israel and the Palestinians. Since data collection began in 1992, some of the worst months of the last three decades have come in response to conflict in the region, according to data from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. Muslims in the U.S. have also faced a spate of hate incidents over the last several weeks. In New York, a Brooklyn mosque was vandalized on the Eid al-Fitr holiday marking the end of Ramadan this month with graffiti reading "Death 2 Palestine." Police are also investigating an incident last week at a mosque on Long Island in which a Muslim religious flag was burned and apparent pro-Trump graffiti was spray-painted on the base of the flag. Speaking Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of the nation's most prominent Jewish politicians, sought to frame the attacks as part of a larger problem of violence and hatred facing the country. "Antisemitism is rising in America. It's rising all over the world. That is an outrage. And we have got to combat antisemitism," Sanders said. "We have to combat the increase in hate crimes in this country, against Asians, against African Americans, against Latinos. So we got a serious problem of a nation which is being increasingly divided, being led by right-wing extremists in that direction."
10/9/21
1 - LogCon
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker NA | Judge: Krause, Lukas The neg burden is to prove that the aff won’t logically happen in the status quo, and the aff burden is to prove that it will. Prefer - A Text – Ought is “used to express logical consequence” as defined by Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought)Massa Oxford Dictionary defines ought as “used to indicate something that is probable.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oughtMassa B Debatability – 1) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years 2) moral oughts cannot guide action. Aff forfeited their right to define ought in the 1AC, it’s in the res and late definitions kill 1NC ballot access. Grey 11, Grey, JW. "The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get "Ought" from "Is?"" Ethical Realism. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. Massa The is/ought gap... explaining to do. 3. Neg definition choice – Anything else kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition. Their inherency proves the aff won’t happen. Either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) It is and it isn’t going to happen.
10/9/21
1 - Theory - Provide all sources for evidence
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker NA | Judge: Krause, Lukas A- must provide a link to the evidence, or literally any other way to access it easily
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Malyugina, Emmiee The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement, the neg must prove it true and the aff false – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.
They justify substantive skews since there will always be a more correct side of the issue but we compensate for flaws in the lit. 2. Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical. 3. a priori's 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates. 4. The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true so it's constitutive and jurisdictional.
10/8/21
1 - Truth Testing v2
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 6 | Opponent: Samamish LW | Judge: Johnathan Hsu The role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution- the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove the contrary
Constitutivism - the ballot says vote aff or neg based on topic- Merriam Webster defines negate as “to deny the existence or truth of”1 affirm as to “maintain as true” 2 a) anything else is arb b) ows on common usage, every major dictionary agrees 2. Logic - knowing if the resolution is true is a prerequisite for debating it because there is no real world application of arguing about the implications of a false statement. Ie I wouldn’t argue about the pros and cons of 2+2 = 5 because it is 4, or if it is false workers ought to have an RTS there is no point reading Advantages or DAs 3. Changing the structure of the activity can’t occur within the round a) it’s nonsensical to bring up new rules unless discussed outside of the act of playing the game otherwise competitive incentives will always skew rule creation b) out of round rule-setting solves 100 of your offense c) 1ar theory is DTA because it is 7-6, 2-1 skewed to the aff and the answers to the counter interp will always be new so we can’t determine if the norm is actually good d) end the round after this speech so we have the same number of speeches which is the most reciprocal and compensates for infinite aff prep 4. Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.
12/4/21
1 - Truth Testing v3
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland AR | Judge: Faizaan Dossani The role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution- the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove the contrary
Constitutivism - the ballot says vote aff or neg based on topic- Merriam Webster defines negate as “to deny the existence or truth of”1 affirm as to “maintain as true” 2 a) anything other rotb is arb b) ows on common usage, every major dictionary agrees 2. Logic - knowing if the resolution is true is a prerequisite for debating it because there is no real-world application of arguing about the implications of a false statement. Ie I wouldn’t argue about the pros and cons of 2+2 = 5 because it is 4, or if it is just for private companies to appropriate space there is no point reading Advantages or DAs 3. Changing the structure of the activity can’t occur within the round a) it’s nonsensical to bring up new rules unless discussed outside of the act of playing the game otherwise competitive incentives will always skew rule creation b) out of round rule-setting solves 100 of your offense c) 1ar theory is DTA because it is 7-6, 2-1 skewed to the aff and the answers to the counter interp will always be new so we can’t determine if the norm is actually good
1/15/22
1 - Util
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pittman, Phoenix | Judge: Lincoln East EB The standard is act hedonistic util. Prefer – 1- its intrinsic blum 2– No intent-foresight distinction – if I foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of my deliberation since its intrinsic to my action 3 – Actor spec – governments lack wills or intentions and inevitably deals with tradeoffs – outweighs because agents have differing obligations. 4 – No act omission distinction – choosing not to act is an action in of itself since you had to make an active decision to omit. Walking past a drowning baby and choosing not to save it is a cognitive decision you were faced with and you actively decided to keep walking b) warranting a distinction gives agents the permissible choice of omitting from any ethical action since omissions lack culpability.
Yes util - their framing collapses
Extinction first – 1 – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible which proves moral uncertainty 2 – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessities 3 – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical 4 – Prior question since people would attempt to steal the small amount of resources that exist before they die so it turns virtue, also you need to be alive to be virtuous which means it’s a prerequisite
11/6/21
1 - disclosure interp
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista RD | Judge: Clark, Quentin A - Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them, and if they do not have previous LD experience should provide an entry on the wiki under their name to include contact information.
10/9/21
1 - paradoxi
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker NA | Judge: Krause, Lukas 1 If everything exists in a place in space time, that place must also have a place that it exists and that larger place needs a larger location to infinity. Therefore, identifying ought statements is impossible since those statements assume acting on objects in the space-time continuum 2 Premise 1: there’s an infinite number of arrangements of atoms where the aff fails, and a finite amount where it succeeds. Premise 2: Let x be the cases where the aff succeeds. The probability of the aff succeeding is x divided by x plus the number of cases where the aff fails, which is infinity, and an infinite denominator converges to zero. Premise 3: The probability the aff succeeds is 0, the probability it fails is 100 - no solvency. 3 To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, then half the remaining distance, then again, and so on to infinity. Motion is impossible since you must travel infinite distances in finite time.
10/9/21
2 - JF - Unjust Burdens
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland AR | Judge: Faizaan Dossani The burden of the affirmative is to prove that space appropriation by private entities is unjust— This is the text of the resolution and regardless of the plan text our roles are verified
The resolution is a maxim, if something is just it must be always just and if something is unjust it must be always unjust Prefer — 1 Limits a) any other interp allows the affirmative to prove space appropriation is unjust in a hyper-specific instance exploding limits b) your one instance is outweighed by infinite instances in which space appropriation is just 2 Contradictions negate because they prove the resolution has exceptions 3 Absent binding justice claims exceptions allow people to escape obligations by creating hyper specific instances– ie; I could claim it is unjust to steal unless it is for Jeremiah Cohn 4 Negation theory— the negs role is to test the aff from many different angles— any interpretation of the topic that puts burden of proof on the neg flips this 5 The resolution is in passive voice— it asks us to test the truth of the resolution in a vacuum not present any change to real-world policy
Negate— 1 Justice starts culturally— proven by different laws and social norms in varying countries— the rez might be true for US space companies but not Russian ones, or a country not yet created— so it is impossible to affirm as a maxim 2 The appropriation of space cannot be unjust— space is infinitely expanding and thus there is no problem with allocation SEP 21 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/cohn First, it shows that justice has to do with how individual people are treated (‘to each his due’). Issues of justice arise in circumstances in which people can advance claims – to freedom, opportunities, resources, and so forth – that are potentially conflicting, and we appeal to justice to resolve such conflicts by determining what each person is properly entitled to have. In contrast, where people’s interests converge, and the decision to be taken is about the best way to pursue some common purpose – think of a government official having to decide how much food to stockpile as insurance against some future emergency – justice gives way to other values. In other cases, there may be no reason to appeal to justice because resources are so plentiful that we do not need to worry about allotting shares to individuals. Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where ‘every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want’, ‘the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of’ (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, pp. 183–4). Hume also believed – and philosophical controversy on this point persists until today – that justice has no place in close personal relationships, such as the family, where (it is alleged) each identifies with the others’ interests so strongly that there is no need and no reason for anyone to make claims of personal entitlement. (See Sandel 1982 for a defence of this view; for a critique, see Okin 1989. See also the entry on feminist perspectives on reproduction and the family). 3 Private entities can only make morally neutral actions— the unjust actor is a person at the organization— at worst this is a plan flaw because you cannot condemn the actors that cause the harms of the AC Palmer 21 Palmer, Bruce. (2021). What Is an Unjust Act?. 10.13140/RG.2.2.26191.61604 cohn Justice and injustice share an important quality that many have recognized: They are both socially defined and require at least two people.2 Without actors and victims, neither occurs. Justice and injustice, however, can and often do refer to society-wide standards. Not so with an unjust act. There is no society-wide unjust act. All societies in some senses can be called unjust.3 Whole groups can be treated unjustly, but only as individuals and only by individuals. Societies do not act unjustly, people do. Racism can be said to be the cause or result of injustice, but it is not an unjust act. Slavery is a relationship, not an unjust act, although it can be called an unjust relationship. Slavery and racism are, however, created and maintained by unjust acts. Sometimes it is said that a company, organization, or other entity has acted unjustly. Such a thing does not happen. None of these can be either an unjust actor or a victim. They cannot choose or have choice taken from them. They cannot be incarcerated or enslaved. They cannot be the victims of hate crimes. Companies in the United States do have the legal status of persons for some functions, and for ease of reference they are often referred to as if they were persons, but they are not. When one of these entities is accused of being an unjust actor, it means that a person, or a number of them, acted unjustly in the name of the organization. Finding which particular person or persons ordered an unjust act might be impossible and the entity might be penalized for an unjust act, but the actor is always a person 4 The rez doesn’t specify humanity— an infinite universe guarantees that there will be an infinite number of alien societies where space appropriation is just.
1/15/22
2 - ND - BizCon
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pittman, Phoenix | Judge: Lincoln East EB Global 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 The nation that wins the global tech race will dominate the 21st century. This has been true since the 1800s. Given the rapid pace of innovation and tech’s impact on our economy and defense capabilities in the last decade, there is ample evidence to suggest that the need for investment in tech research and development has never been greater. China has been closing the tech gap in recent years by making bold investments in tech with the intent of overtaking the United States. This is a tech war we cannot afford to lose. It’s imperative that Congress pass the Endless Frontier Act and authorize the biggest RandD tech investment in the United States since the Apollo years. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Santa Clara, made a massive increase in science and technology investment a major part of his platform while campaigning for a seat in Congress in 2016. Now the co-author of the 600-page legislation is on the cusp of pushing through a bipartisan effort that has been years in the making. Khanna and his co-authors, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., are shepherding the bill through the Senate, which is expected to approve it sometime later this month. That would set up a reconciliation debate between the House and Senate that would determine the bill’s final language. The ultimate size of the investment is still very much up in the air. Khanna would like Congress to authorize $100 billion over a five-year period for critical advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other cutting-edge technologies. The Senate is talking of knocking that number down to $50 billion or $75 billion. They should be reminded of China Premier Li Keqiang’s March announcement that China would increase its research and development spending by an additional 7 per year between 2021 and 2025. The United States still outspends China in RandD, spending $612 billion on research and development in 2019, compared to China’s $514 billion. But the gap is narrowing. At the turn of the century, China was only spending $33 billion a year on RandD, while the United States was spending nearly 10 times that amount. The bill would authorize 10 technology hubs throughout the nation designed to help build the infrastructure, manufacturing facilities and workforce needed to help meet the nation’s tech goals. Building tech centers throughout the United States should also create more support for the industry across the country. Tech’s image has taken a beating in recent years — the emergence of the term “Big Tech” is hardly a positive development — and the industry will need all the support it can muster in Congress. The United States continues to have a crucial tech edge over its competitors, most notably China. The only way we can hope to win the 21st century is to make significant investments in research and development that will spark the next wave of innovation.
Violent strike efforts are increasing - but due to regulation they are low in the tech sector now - 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 The result: Verizon conceded to several of the workers’ demands including hiring union workers, protection against outsourcing of call-center jobs, and employee benefits such as salary hikes and higher pension contributions, among others and thus bringing an end to the strike in June. The repercussion: The strike witnessed several instances of social disorder, violence and clashes, ultimately calling for third party intervention (Secretary of Labor – Thomas Perez) to initiate negotiations between the parties. Also, as a result of the strike, Verizon reported lower than expected revenues in the second quarter of 2016. Trade unions/ labor unions aren’t just this millennia’s product and has been in vogue since times immemorial. Unions, to ensure fairness to the working class, have gone on strike for better working conditions and employee benefits since the industrial revolution and are as strong today as they were last century. With the advent of technology and advancement in artificial intelligence, machines are grabbing the jobs which were once the bastion of the humans. So, questions that arise here are, what relevance do unions have in today’s work scenario? And, are the strikes organized by them avoidable? As long as the concept of labor exists and employees feel that they are not receiving their fair share of dues, unions will exist and thrive. Union protests in most cases cause work stoppages, and in certain cases, disruption of law and order. Like in March 2016, public servants at Federal Government departments across Australia went on a series of strikes over failed pay negotiations, disrupting operations of many government departments for a few days. Besides such direct effects, there are many indirect effects as well such as strained employee relations, slower work processes, lesser productivity and unnecessary legal hassles. Also, union strikes can never be taken too lightly as they have prompted major overturn of decisions, on a few occasions. Besides the Verizon incident that was a crucial example of this, nationwide strikes were witnessed in India in March and April this year when the national government introduced reforms related to the withdrawal regulations and interest rate of employee provident fund, terming it as ‘anti-working class’. This compelled the government to withhold the reform for further review. In France, strike against labor law reforms in May turned violent, resulting in riots and significant damage to property. The incident prompted the government to consider modifications to the proposed reforms. However, aside from employee concerns, such incidents are also determined by a number of other factors such as the country’s political scenario, economy, size of the overall workforce and the unions, history of unionization, labor laws, and culture. For example, it is a popular saying that the French are always on strike as per tradition (although recent statistics indicate a decline in frequency). In a communist government like China, strikes have steadily risen in number. In 2015, China Labor Bulletin (CLB), a Hong Kong-based workers’ rights group recorded 2,700 incidents of strikes and protests, compared to 1,300 incidents in 2014. Most of them have stemmed out of failure by the government to respect the basic rights of employees and address labor concerns.Interestingly, unions have not been able to gain a strong foothold in the IT-BPO industry. While many countries do have a separate union to represent workers from the sector, incidents of strikes like Verizon have been relatively low. However, workplace regulations, in addition to other factors mentioned could be a trigger for such incidents, even if on a smaller scale. For example, a recent survey that interviewed several BPO employees in India revealed that while forming a union in the BPO sector was difficult, irksome workplace regulations such as constant surveillance, irregular timings and incentives have prompted employees to express their resentment in smaller ways such as corruption of internal servers and so on. Such risks are further enhanced in a city like Kolkata, which carries a strong trade union culture.
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 In response to tech company crackdowns and lobbying, gig workers have shifted their strategy to emphasize building worker-led movements and increasing their ranks, rather than focusing on employment status as the primary goal, says Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The hope is that with President Biden in the White House and an even split in the Senate, legislators will mobilize at the federal level, through the NLRA or bills such as the PRO Act, to recognize gig worker collectives as real unions.
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 If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions of lives rather than the comparatively small number of people alive today. The 7.6 billion people now living, after all, amount to less than 0.003 percent of the population that will live in the future. It’s reasonable to suggest that those quadrillions of future people have, accordingly, hundreds of thousands of times more moral weight than those of us living here today do. That’s the basic argument behind Nick Beckstead’s 2013 Rutgers philosophy dissertation, “On the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future.” It’s a glorious mindfuck of a thesis, not least because Beckstead shows very convincingly that this is a conclusion any plausible moral view would reach. It’s not just something that weird utilitarians have to deal with. And Beckstead, to his considerable credit, walks the walk on this. He works at the Open Philanthropy Project on grants relating to the far future and runs a charitable fund for donors who want to prioritize the far future. And arguments from him and others have turned “long-termism” into a very vibrant, important strand of the effective altruism community. But what does prioritizing the far future even mean? The most literal thing it could mean is preventing human extinction, to ensure that the species persists as long as possible. For the long-term-focused effective altruists I know, that typically means identifying concrete threats to humanity’s continued existence — like unfriendly artificial intelligence, or a pandemic, or global warming/out of control geoengineering — and engaging in activities to prevent that specific eventuality. But in a set of slides he made in 2013, Beckstead makes a compelling case that while that’s certainly part of what caring about the far future entails, approaches that address specific threats to humanity (which he calls “targeted” approaches to the far future) have to complement “broad” approaches, where instead of trying to predict what’s going to kill us all, you just generally try to keep civilization running as best it can, so that it is, as a whole, well-equipped to deal with potential extinction events in the future, not just in 2030 or 2040 but in 3500 or 95000 or even 37 million. In other words, caring about the far future doesn’t mean just paying attention to low-probability risks of total annihilation; it also means acting on pressing needs now. For example: We’re going to be better prepared to prevent extinction from AI or a supervirus or global warming if society as a whole makes a lot of scientific progress. And a significant bottleneck there is that the vast majority of humanity doesn’t get high-enough-quality education to engage in scientific research, if they want to, which reduces the odds that we have enough trained scientists to come up with the breakthroughs we need as a civilization to survive and thrive. So maybe one of the best things we can do for the far future is to improve school systems — here and now — to harness the group economist Raj Chetty calls “lost Einsteins” (potential innovators who are thwarted by poverty and inequality in rich countries) and, more importantly, the hundreds of millions of kids in developing countries dealing with even worse education systems than those in depressed communities in the rich world. What if living ethically for the far future means living ethically now? Beckstead mentions some other broad, or very broad, ideas (these are all his descriptions): Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better-governed countries and be more productive Meta-research: improve incentives and norms in academic work to better advance human knowledge Improve education Advocate for political party X to make future people have values more like political party X ”If you look at these areas (economic growth and technological progress, access to information, individual capability, social coordination, motives) a lot of everyday good works contribute,” Beckstead writes. “An implication of this is that a lot of everyday good works are good from a broad perspective, even though hardly anyone thinks explicitly in terms of far future standards.” Look at those examples again: It’s just a list of what normal altruistically motivated people, not effective altruism folks, generally do. Charities in the US love talking about the lost opportunities for innovation that poverty creates. Lots of smart people who want to make a difference become scientists, or try to work as teachers or on improving education policy, and lord knows there are plenty of people who become political party operatives out of a conviction that the moral consequences of the party’s platform are good. All of which is to say: Maybe effective altruists aren’t that special, or at least maybe we don’t have access to that many specific and weird conclusions about how best to help the world. If the far future is what matters, and generally trying to make the world work better is among the best ways to help the far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery.
11/6/21
2 - ND - Cap K
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Skylar Harris ERROR
11/5/21
2 - ND - Cap K v2
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Grant Brown This time with a second white card for Ks
12/4/21
2 - ND - Falsifiability
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Skylar Harris ERROR
11/5/21
2 - ND - T-A
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 4 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Jonah Gentleman Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a just government. “A” is an indefinite article that modifies “just government” in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a vacuum, not a particular instance CCC (“Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers”, http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective. The is called the definite article because it usually precedes a specific or previously mentioned noun; a and an are called indefinite articles because they are used to refer to something in a less specific manner (an unspecified count noun). These words are also listed among the noun markers or determiners because they are almost invariably followed by a noun (or something else acting as a noun). caution CAUTION! Even after you learn all the principles behind the use of these articles, you will find an abundance of situations where choosing the correct article or choosing whether to use one or not will prove chancy. Icy highways are dangerous. The icy highways are dangerous. And both are correct. The is used with specific nouns. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something that is one of a kind: The moon circles the earth. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something in the abstract: The United States has encouraged the use of the private automobile as opposed to the use of public transit. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something named earlier in the text. (See below..) If you would like help with the distinction between count and non-count nouns, please refer to Count and Non-Count Nouns. We use a before singular count-nouns that begin with consonants (a cow, a barn, a sheep); we use an before singular count-nouns that begin with vowels or vowel-like sounds (an apple, an urban blight, an open door). Words that begin with an h sound often require an a (as in a horse, a history book, a hotel), but if an h-word begins with an actual vowel sound, use an an (as in an hour, an honor). We would say a useful device and a union matter because the u of those words actually sounds like yoo (as opposed, say, to the u of an ugly incident). The same is true of a European and a Euro (because of that consonantal "Yoo" sound). We would say a once-in-a-lifetime experience or a one-time hero because the words once and one begin with a w sound (as if they were spelled wuntz and won). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says that we can use an before an h- word that begins with an unstressed syllable. Thus, we might say an hisTORical moment, but we would say a HIStory book. Many writers would call that an affectation and prefer that we say a historical, but apparently, this choice is a matter of personal taste. For help on using articles with abbreviations and acronyms (a or an FBI agent?), see the section on Abbreviations. First and subsequent reference: When we first refer to something in written text, we often use an indefinite article to modify it. A newspaper has an obligation to seek out and tell the truth. In a subsequent reference to this newspaper, however, we will use the definite article: There are situations, however, when the newspaper must determine whether the public's safety is jeopardized by knowing the truth. Another example: "I'd like a glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put the glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Exception: When a modifier appears between the article and the noun, the subsequent article will continue to be indefinite: "I'd like a big glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put a big glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Generic reference: We can refer to something in a generic way by using any of the three articles. We can do the same thing by omitting the article altogether. A beagle makes a great hunting dog and family companion. An airedale is sometimes a rather skittish animal. The golden retriever is a marvelous pet for children. Irish setters are not the highly intelligent animals they used to be. The difference between the generic indefinite pronoun and the normal indefinite pronoun is that the latter refers to any of that class ("I want to buy a beagle, and any old beagle will do.") whereas the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class The article “a” implies a nonspecific or generic reading of the word “just government”. Walden 20 Walden University The Writing Center provides a broad range of writing instruction and editing services for students at Walden University, including writing assistance for undergraduates, graduate students, and doctoral capstone writers, “"A" or "An"” last modified July 14 2020, https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/articles SM When to Use "A" or "An" "A" and "an" are used with singular countable nouns when the noun is nonspecific or generic. I do not own a car. In this sentence, "car" is a singular countable noun that is not specific. It could be any car. She would like to go to a university that specializes in teaching. "University" is a singular countable noun. Although it begins with a vowel, the first sound of the word is /j/ or “y.” Thus, "a" instead of "an" is used. In this sentence, it is also generic (it could be any university with this specialization, not a specific one). I would like to eat an apple. In this sentence, "apple" is a singular countable noun that is not specific. It could be any apple. “Democracy” is a generic indefinite singular. Leslie 12 Leslie, Sarah-Jane. “Generics.” In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge, 2012. https://www.princeton.edu/~sjleslie/RoutledgeHandbookEntryGenerics.pdf SM GENERICS VS. EXISTENTIALS The interpretation of sentences containing bare plurals, indefinite singulars, or definite singulars can be either generic as in (1) respectively or existential/specific as in (2): (1) Tigers are striped A tiger is striped The tiger is striped. (2) Tigers are on the front lawn A tiger is on the front lawn The tiger is on the front lawn. The subjects in (1) are prima facie the same as in (2), yet their interpretations in (1) are intuitively quite different from those in (2). In (2) we are talking about some particular tigers, while in (1) we are saying something about tigers in general. There are some tests that are helpful in distinguishing these two readings. For example, the existential interpretation is upward entailing, meaning that the statement will always remain true if we replace the subject term with a more inclusive term. For example, if it is true that tigers are on the lawn, then it will also be true that animals are on the lawn. This is not so if the sentence is interpreted generically. For example, it is true that tigers are striped, but it does not follow that animals are striped (Lawler 1973 Laca 1990; Krifka et al 1995). Another test concerns whether we can insert an adverb of quantification (in the sense of Lewis 1975) with minimal change of meaning (Krifka et al 1995). For example, inserting “usually” in the sentences in (1) (e.g. “tigers are usually striped”) produces only a small change in meaning, while inserting “usually” in (2) dramatically alters the meaning of the sentence (e.g. “tigers are usually on the front lawn). (For generics such as “mosquitoes carry malaria”, the adverb “sometimes” is perhaps better used than “usually”.) Violation: Standards: 1 Precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff. 2 Limits – there are infinite governments that could be just – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. laws about the right to strike in the US are different than in New Zealand – means the aff is always more prepared and wins just for speccing. 3 TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves your offense – ie my aff which is Unions whole rez Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs – it constrains your ability to evaluate the rest of the flow because they require fair evaluation. Drop the debater – to deter future abuse and set better norms for debate. Competing interps – reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention but we creates a race to the top where we create the best norms for debate. no RVI on T- a illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being topical b RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices c allows us to return to substance if u prove case was T 1AR theory is dta and reasonability – sandbagging, irresolvable RVI on 1AR theory – 7/6 time skew o/w 1nc theory first a prior b reciprocal 2 speeches c self inflicted
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Grant Brown Check OS mf cites keep deleting themselves
12/4/21
2 - ND - Unconditional Burdens
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 6 | Opponent: Samamish LW | Judge: Johnathan Hsu The burden of the affirmative is to prove that workers ought to have an unconditional right to strike in all instances (aff advocate under the burden: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1770/177054481008.pdf) A Linguistic Definition - Unconditional modifies “right of workers to strike” in the rez and is defined as Vocabulary.com ND https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unconditionalcohn Definitions of unconditional aadjective not conditional “unconditional surrender” Synonyms: unconditioned, blunt, crude, stark devoid of any qualifications or disguise or adornment vested fixed and absolute and without contingency unqualified not limited or restricted see more b adjective not modified or restricted by reservations Synonyms: categoric, categorical, flat, Unqualified not limited or restricted c adjective not contingent; not determined or influenced by someone or something else Synonyms: Independent free from external control and constraint
B Philosophical definition- Unconditional rights do not need to be acquired and cannot be overruled, as opposed to civil or condition rights Magnell 11 Thomas Magnell, Quals: Philosopher, Department of Philosophy, Drew University, Madison, NJ, The Correlativity of Rights and Duties, J Value Inquiry (2011) 45:1–12BA PB Unconditional rights may be either absolutely unconditional or relatively unconditional. An absolutely unconditional right is a right which every right-holder enjoys as something capable of having rights. These are the most fundamental of all rights. As rights which all right-holders have simply as right-holders, they are common to all people, institutions, corporations, societies, and at least some nonhuman animals. They do not need to be acquired. Because they are held unconditionally, they cannot be overruled. For the same reason, they are as minimal as can be. To draw anything more than the most minimal rights from right-holders as such is almost surely a mistake. The flights of fancy of natural rights theorists led Bentham to shout: ‘‘Natural Rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts.’’12 Still, notwithstanding Bentham’s finest flourish of phrasing, there may be some, for example, the right of a right-holder not to be subject to a wanton disregard of its interests. This would seem to be a right that at least some animals have as well as people taken individually or in groups. It is not a particularly robust right. An awful lot of harm can be inflicted upon a right-holder without showing a wanton disregard for the right holder’s interests. Even so, as minimal as it is, it is not a right that is always respected, as National Socialists and International Socialists showed in concentration camps and the Gulag. A relatively unconditional right is a right which all right-holders of a certain kind enjoy without qualification. This gives a clear sense to the much abused term ‘‘human rights,’’ though there may be others. In the strictest sense, human rights are relatively unconditional rights. They are rights which human beings have simply as human beings, or perhaps more precisely as persons, if not all human beings are accounted persons, whatever their role or situation within or apart from a society. A better term for them would be ‘‘person rights,’’ but here the common term is unlikely to be allowed to give way. Human rights are not acquired, though if personhood is a characteristic that human beings can come to have and come to lose, human rights may be gained or lost along with it. Some other right-holders may have the same rights unconditionally, but not all. Narrower on the one hand than absolutely unconditional rights, broader on the other than conditional rights, human rights cannot be conferred by declarations or political manifestos on non-human animals or people: not on non-human animals because non-human animals cannot have them, and not on people because people already have them. In the strictest sense, many of the rights that have come to be labeled as human rights in the fairly recent past, such as the supposed rights to a certain level of income or to a certain level of education are not human rights at all, however politically popular it may be to say that they are. If they are rights in any sense, they are civil rights, acquired rights that are conferred by some civil authority. Human rights in the strictest sense have a more philosophical tone. One notable human right is that of entering into obligations, the right, odd as it sounds, to bear duties. Another is the human right to freedom, the relatively unconditional right that people who are capable of acting autonomously have as such beings. We have a right to liberty without the need for the right to be conferred, while other beings, such as non-human animals that may have the broader absolutely unconditional rights, lack this relatively unconditional right. This is why liberty is intimately tied with human dignity, even as it is demonstrably allied with human prosperity. All other rights that have correlative duties are conditional rights, rights of only some right-holders. They are acquired rights. Their acquisition is conditional on meeting certain qualifications. Someone has a right to have a promise kept only if he meets the qualifications of being the promisee. Someone has a right to receive charity only if he meets the qualification of being in need. From this it should be evident that conditional rights may be either conditioned-rights or unconditioned rights. What makes a right conditioned is a condition of the right itself, that of the correlative duty, an imperfect duty, not being conferred on other qualified rights holders. What makes a right conditional is a condition for acquiring the right in the first place. C Neg burden choice – The aff should have clarified one in the 1ac, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read one. This would be like reading a new util framework in the 1ar, which kills 1NC strategy since I premised it on your lack of one. I provided an aff advocate, proves my burden is in the lit and reasonable, reading a phil aff like Kant, Agonism, or Petit solves all of your offense and is intended aff ground
Implications; 1 The AC is just defense because it only shows that a certain instance that would justify a right to strike but they don't defend the topic as a maxim 2 Presume neg because there could always be some instance we have yet to discover in which a right to strike in no longer justified 3 There are more ways to prove a statement false than true Vote neg- Workers shouldn’t be allowed to strike in protest of inclusivity - that's morally abhorrent Workers ought not be allowed to strike if it harms another person(s) more than their working conditions harm them - that's justified by your util argument Induction fails- all inductions are built on past inductions so it regresses, we can never be sure of the future The aff is incoherent- a right to strike is inherently conditional, fiat doesn’t solve because it still bites my offense and you are still claiming two contradictory things are the same (a conditional and unconditional right) By giving workers a right to strike by affirming it makes the right to strike condition which means affirming makes the aff non-topical. A right to strike is conferred by civil authority, IE courts or a just government upholding it
12/4/21
2 - ND - Violent Strikes CP vs India
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham RL | Judge: Thornhill, Zach CP: India’s supreme court ought to recognize a worker’s right to strike following the conditions outlined in Mlungisi, enforced by the government’s court system
11/6/21
2 - SO - Climate Patents DA
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista RD | Judge: Clark, Quentin Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but an Covid IP waiver sets a dangerous precedent- the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. Sid. recut cohn The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is precisely for this reason that it can expect to be in the crosshairs of potential IP waiver discussions. President Biden is correct to refer to climate change as an existential crisis. Yet it does not take too much effort to connect the dots between President Biden’s focus on climate change and his Administration’s recent commitment to waive global IP rights for Covid vaccines (TRIPS IP Waiver). “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.” If an IP waiver is purportedly necessary to solve the COVID-19 global health crisis (and of course we dispute this notion), can we really feel confident that this or some future Administration will not apply the same logic to the climate crisis? And, without the confidence in the underlying IP for such solutions, what does this mean for U.S. innovation and economic growth? United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai was subject to questioning along this very line during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing. And while Ambassador Tai did not affirmatively state that an IP waiver would be in the future for climate change technology, she surely did not assuage the concerns of interested parties. The United States has historically supported robust IP protection. This support is one reason the United States is the center of biotechnology innovation and leading the fight against COVID-19. However, a brief review of the domestic legislation arguably most relevant to this discussion shows just how far the international campaign against IP rights has eroded our normative position. The Clean Air Act, for example, contains a provision allowing for the mandatory licensing of patents covering certain devices for reducing air pollution. Importantly, however, the patent owner is accorded due process and the statute lays out a detailed process regulating the manner in which any such license can be issued, including findings of necessity and that no reasonable alternative method to accomplish the legislated goal exists. Also of critical importance is that the statute requires compensation to the patent holder. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act contemplates mandatory licensing of patents covering inventions of primary importance in producing or utilizing atomic energy. This statute, too, requires due process, findings of importance to the statutory goals and compensation to the rights holder. A TRIPS IP waiver would operate outside of these types of frameworks. There would be no due process, no particularized findings, no compensation and no recourse. Indeed, the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) already has a process under the TRIPS agreement to address public health crises, including the compulsory licensing provisions, with necessary guardrails and compensation, makes quite clear that the waiver would operate as a free for all. Forced Tech Transfer Could Be on The Table When being questioned about the scope of a potential TRIPS IP waiver, Ambassador Tai invoked the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this answer suggests primarily that, in times of famine, the Administration would rather give away other people’s fishing rods than share its own plentiful supply of fish (here: actual COVID-19 vaccine stocks), it is apparent that in Ambassador Tai’s view waiving patent rights alone would not help lower- and middle-income countries produce their own vaccines. Rather, they would need to be taught how to make the vaccines and given the biotech industry’s manufacturing know-how, sensitive cell lines, and proprietary cell culture media in order to do so. In other words, Ambassador Tai acknowledged that the scope of the current TRIPS IP waiver discussions includes the concept of forced tech transfer. In the context of climate change, the idea would be that companies who develop successful methods for producing new seed technologies and sustainable biomass, reducing greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transportation, capturing and sequestering carbon in soil and products, and more, would be required to turn over their proprietary know-how to global competitors. While it is unclear how this concept would work in practice and under the constitutions of certain countries, the suggestion alone could be devastating to voluntary international collaborations. Even if one could assume that the United States could not implement forced tech transfer on its own soil, what about the governments of our international development partners? It is not hard to understand that a U.S.-based company developing climate change technologies would be unenthusiastic about partnering with a company abroad knowing that the foreign country’s government is on track – with the assent of the U.S. government – to change its laws and seize proprietary materials and know-how that had been voluntarily transferred to the local company. Necessary Investment Could Diminish Developing climate change solutions is not an easy endeavor and bad policy positions threaten the likelihood that they will materialize. These products have long lead times from research and development to market introduction, owing not only to a high rate of failure but also rigorous regulatory oversight. Significant investment is required to sustain and drive these challenging and long-enduring endeavors. For example, synthetic biology companies critical to this area of innovation raised over $1 billion in investment in the second quarter of 2019 alone. If investors cannot be confident that IP will be in place to protect important climate change technologies after their long road from bench to market, it is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels.
Climate change is game over - higher magnitude, some people will always survive pandemics due to things like natural immunity and medical treatments but Climate Change literally makes the world unlivable Specktor 19 Brandon writes about the science of everyday life for Live Science, and previously for Reader's Digest magazine, where he served as an editor for five years 6-4-2019, "Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims," livescience, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-2050.html Justin The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate models — like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk — fail to account for the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far worse than any models can fathom. How the world ends What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions. "Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized. Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees. This mass movement of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely. The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global civilization as we know it."
10/9/21
2 - SO - Contracts
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Malyugina, Emmiee See OS - cites broken
The standard is consistency with Contractarianism.
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 5 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Haas, Eliza Text – States ought to individually domestically establish single-payer national health insurance.
10/16/21
2 - SO - Nibble
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Malyugina, Emmiee Merriam Webster defines ‘member’ as: PENIS3 Merriam Webster defines ‘trade’ as: having a larger softcover format than that of a mass-market paperback and usually sold only in bookstores4 Merriam Webster defines ‘World’ as: a distinctive class of persons or their sphere of interest or activity5 Merriam Webster defines ‘reduce’ as: to decrease the volume and concentrate the flavor of by boiling6 Dictionary.com defines ‘intellectual’ as: a person of superior intellect.7 Dictionary.com defines ‘property’ as: an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing8 Merriam Webster defines ‘protections’ as: anchoring equipment placed in cracks for safety while rock climbing9 Dictionary.com defines ‘medicine’ as: any object or practice regarded as having magical powers.10
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Malyugina, Emmiee Interpretation: The aff can't defend that a subset of member nations ought to reduce IP protections.
10/8/21
2 - SO - T Nebel v2
Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker NA | Judge: Krause, Lukas Interpretation: The aff can't defend that a subset of member nations ought to reduce IP protections. “member nations” are a bare plural - it can’t be specified more 1 Upward entailment test – “member nations ought to reduce protections” doesn’t imply that “political bodies ought to reduce protections” because there might not be an obligation for the UN or terrorist groups 2 Adverb test -- “ all member nations ought to reduce protections” doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the res but “some member nations” does
Violation: they spec the EU and 1 Precision and semantics outweigh – vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff. 2 Limits – There are over 164 affs with any permutation of member states . There’s no universal DA since each has different functions and geopolitical implications – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. 3 TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under whole res, solves all your offense Fairness and education are voters – its how judges evaluate rounds and why schools fund debate DTD – it’s key to norm set and deter future abuse Neg theory is DTD - 1ARs control the direction of the debate because it determines what the 2NR has to go for – DTD allows us some leeway in the round by having some control in the direction Competing interps – Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation No RVIs – A – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe B - Discourages checking real abuse which outweighs on norm-setting C – Encourages theory baiting – outweighs because if the shell is frivolous, they can beat it quickly D – its illogical for you to win for proving you were fair – outweighs since logic is a litmus test for other arguments NC 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 3 It was introduced first so it comes lexically prior. Neg abuse outweighs Aff abuse – 1 Infinite prep time before round to frontline 2 2AR judge psychology and 1st and last speech 3 Infinite perms and uplayering in the 1AR. Reasonability on 1AR shells – 1AR theory is very 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 really abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance. DTA on 1AR shells - They can blow up blippy 20 second shells in 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. RVIs on 1AR theory – 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – ows on quantifiability No new 1ar theory paradigm issues- A New 1ar paradigms moot any 1NC theoretical offense B introducing them in the aff allows for them to be more rigorously tested
10/9/21
2 - SO - T-FW vs common core aff
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 2 | Opponent: Montville NP | Judge: Pisolkar, Nikhil Our interpretation is that the resolution should exclusively define the division of affirmative and negative ground
definitions on the OS
Violation: they defend their method. Independently, garnering offense from form implies their speech act is an advocacy. CX proves and hold the line – at best, they’re Extra-T which still links to our predictability offense.
Vote neg –
Predictable limits - post-facto topic adjustment manipulates the balance of prep which is anchored around the resolution. The resolution is the only official and public stasis point for pre-round prep. Two impacts
Clash – the resolution as a stasis point is key for thorough examining of both sides of topic – that deconstructs dogma through self-reflection and consideration of multiple viewpoints AND is a prerequisite for third- and fourth-level iteration that develops advocacy skills which turn all their out-of-round impacts.
2. Procedural Fairness – speech times, speaker positions, and wins and losses prove debate is a game structured around competition. Procedural equity is necessary for the sustainability and value of that game otherwise no one will play – any interpretation that upsets it should lose. Independently, its assessment is inevitable because it’s the logical evaluative structure that undergirds their arguments.
3. Tva- they can just read their aff as a full rez or part of the rez that talks about how IP is exclusionary to black/brown people or the developing world or how IP perpetuates cycles of violence
1NC theory is DTD – a) T indicts the whole aff so DTA is DTD b) abuse is supercharged with the 7-6 rebutal time skew c) norm setting d) 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 Forcing the 1NC to go all in on the shell kills substance education and neg strat which outweighs on urgency