Unionville Suryawanshi Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 2 | Ridge MK | Kayla Graham |
|
|
| |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 3 | All Saints Episcopal RL | Jack Daou |
|
|
| |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 5 | Cheyenne Central GH | Jonah Gentleman |
|
|
| |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Octas | Wilcox KM | Luke Bagdon, Zachary Reshovsky, Michael Harris |
|
|
| |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 2 | Ramsay DF | Iyana Trotman |
|
|
| |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 3 | Mercer Island KS | Jeffery Swift |
|
|
| |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 6 | Bronx Science NK | Nigel Taylor-Ward |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Millburn AX | Kyle Kopf |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Lake Highland Prep YA | Nikita Tanguturi |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Doubles | NSU SF | Brendon Morris, Grant Brown, Amanda Ciocca |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Lexington AT | Fabrice Etienne |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Ardsley ZS | Jenn Melin |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | Acton-Boxborough AL | Tara Riggs |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 2 | American Heritage Broward MC | Becca Traber |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 6 | Albuquerque AK | Daniel Shatzkin |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 3 | Durham SA | Sohum Tiwary |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | Octas | Isidore Newman EE | Eric He, Daniel Shatzkin, Nethmin Liyanage |
|
|
| |
| The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Finals | You | The Fitness Gram Pacer Test |
|
|
| |
| The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Semis | You | The Fitness Gram Pacer Test |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Durham BG | Brenna McConnell |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Montville RP | Anthony Survance |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Ridge SN | Nathan Frenkel |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 2 | Opponent: Ridge MK | Judge: Kayla Graham 1AC - Whole Rez Debris War Hacking Advs |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 3 | Opponent: All Saints Episcopal RL | Judge: Jack Daou 1AC - Whole Rez |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | 5 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Jonah Gentleman 1AC - Lay |
| 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Octas | Opponent: Wilcox KM | Judge: Luke Bagdon, Zachary Reshovsky, Michael Harris 1AC - USFG Ban Appropriation Aff |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 2 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Iyana Trotman 1AC - Whole Rez |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 3 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Jeffery Swift 1AC - Whole Rez SV Framing |
| BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | 6 | Opponent: Bronx Science NK | Judge: Nigel Taylor-Ward 1AC - Heidegger |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kyle Kopf 1AC - Deleuze |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi 1AC - Aesthetic Semiocap Aff |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Brendon Morris, Grant Brown, Amanda Ciocca 1AC - Kant |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Fabrice Etienne 1AC - Trade Secrets |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC - Polls |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Opponent: Ardsley ZS | Judge: Jenn Melin 1AC - Deleuze |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AL | Judge: Tara Riggs 1AC - Prisons |
| Sunvite | 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MC | Judge: Becca Traber 1AC - AFCACC shell Must concede permissibility shell Contractarianism NC with Tricks |
| Sunvite | 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin 1AC - Low Earth Orbit Prohibition AC |
| Sunvite | 3 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Sohum Tiwary 1AC - US OST AC |
| Sunvite | Octas | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Eric He, Daniel Shatzkin, Nethmin Liyanage 1AC - PTD |
| The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Contact Info |
| The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Formatting Request |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Brenna McConnell 1AC - Struc Violence COVID adv Developing Countries adv |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Anthony Survance 1AC - Whole Rez COVID Adv WTO Stability Adv Util |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Nathan Frenkel 1AC - Pandemic Prevention |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Contact InfoTournament: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Email: suryawanshia24@ucfsd.net If you are reading this because you are debating me, then good luck, and may we have a great debate! If you are just reading this for fun, hello ig. | 1/7/22 |
Formatting RequestTournament: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test Invitational | Round: Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: The Fitness Gram Pacer Test | 1/7/22 |
JanFeb - China Heg DATournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: David Coates, Saied Beckford, Ausha Curry Chinese space industrial base is set to surpass the USPatel 21 ~(Neel, space reporter for MIT Technology Review, and I also write The Airlock newsletter, your number one source for everything happening off this planet. Before joining, he worked as a freelance science and technology journalist, contributing stories to Popular Science, The Daily Beast, Slate, Wired, the Verge, and elsewhere. Prior to that, he was an associate editor for Inverse, where I grew and led the website's space coverage.) "China's surging private space industry is out to challenge the US" MIT Technology Review, 1/21/2021. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/~~ BC A strong space industrial base makes government sponsored operations in space economically feasiblePatel 21 ~(Neel, space reporter for MIT Technology Review, and I also write The Airlock newsletter, your number one source for everything happening off this planet. Before joining, he worked as a freelance science and technology journalist, contributing stories to Popular Science, The Daily Beast, Slate, Wired, the Verge, and elsewhere. Prior to that, he was an associate editor for Inverse, where I grew and led the website's space coverage.) "China's surging private space industry is out to challenge the US" MIT Technology Review, 1/21/2021. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/~~ BC China fills in the U.S and promotes a stable world worder – solves regional security, nuclear proliferation, climate change and sustainable developmentChen and Zhang 20 Dr. Chen Zhimin is a professor of international relations at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University based in Shanghai, China. He is a Changjiang Scholar and a Jean Monnet Chair of European foreign policy. He is president of International Politics Committee of the Chinese High Education Association. His research interests include international relations theory, diplomacy studies, Chinese foreign policy and EU studies. Apart from his publications in China, he also published in Journal of Common Market Studies, Asia Europe Journal and Journal of Contemporary China, etc. Professor Chen received all his degrees from Fudan University. He was a visiting fellow at Harvard University (1996-1997), also visiting scholar at Queen's University, University of Durham, Lund University, Sciences Po. and Keio University. He was made a Chevalier dans L'Ordre des Palmes Academiques by the French Government in 2006. From 2018, he served as a member of Steering Committee of the Paris Peace Forum. Zhimin Chen and Xueying Zhang (2020) Chinese conception of the world order in a turbulent Trump era, The Pacific Review, 33:3-4, 438-468, DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2020.1728574 Chinese conception of the world order in a turbulent Trump era Zhimin Chen andXueying Zhang Pages 438-468 | Published online: 26 Feb 2020 Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1728574 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09512748.2020.1728574?journalCode=rpre20 avery | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Curry KTournament: Sunvite | Round: Octas | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Eric He, Daniel Shatzkin, Nethmin Liyanage K:Reading Curry is black fem-phobic – I'm gonna attach a shit ton of screen-shots and insert sections of curry's work.He scapegoats Black women as the ones who wanted Black men to be the patriarch – in response to Black hypermasculinity, Curry would blame Black women.Curry 17 — Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy at Texas AandM University, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Southern Illinois University, 2017 ("Conclusion: Not MAN but Not Some Nothing," The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood, Published by Temple University Press, ISBN 9781439914878, p. kindle 4854-4996) AND He argues that women have privilege in the court system, and they actively use and exploit it in assault cases.Curry 17 — Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy at Texas AandM University, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Southern Illinois University, 2017 ("Introduction: Toward a Genre Study of Black Male Death and Dying," The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood, Published by Temple University Press, ISBN 9781439914878, p. kindle 705-823) AND He Misgenders queer folx
AND Says Black Trans folx are too small of a category to analyze the intersections between transness and violence
And Elitist –
AND Positions Black males as the Most oppressed in society – pathologizing the plights of black women
AND Silences Black Women
That's a reason to DTD: 1.~ DTA makes it a no risk option – they can always read the argument and then go for it if a team doesn't call them out but if they are they kick out of it. Only rejecting them sets a norm of violent authros to read. 2.~ Risk of reading this author causes trauma to other debaters in the future is proof of why you should err on the side of dropping the team 3.~ Even if they cited a different portion of curry, we shouldn't let him gain academic hegemony that invisiblizes his violent tendenciesThis is a procedural thing that comes far before we evaluate content | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - DisclosureTournament: BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Jeffery Swift Disclosure:Interpretation: At all TOC bid distributing tournaments, affirmative debaters must disclose all previously read positions with highlighting on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season 30 mins before the round.Violation – check below
Standards –
| 1/28/22 |
JanFeb - Extra T - OSPECTournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Sohum Tiwary Off 1 -Interpretation – The affirmative can only garner offense from the appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust. To clarify, no garnering offense off of methods to solve private entities appropriating outer space such as treaties or actor action.Violation – They have extra offense from US and OST implementation spec, multilatStandards:1~ Limits – Only our interp accurately sets the upper limit to the topic. The CI will let the aff garner offense from any possible way to reduce property rights/private appropriation, which can range from treaties like OST, PTD, Common Heritage or state/actor action, which there are hundreds of. 0 chance the neg can prep for all possible offense relating to space possible and forces random LARP generics, killing fairness.2~ Strat-Skew – Open ended interpretations that allow public companies to appropriate literally anything in space leads to infinite 1ACs. Forces the negative to allows fall back onto generics that can never have the potential to engage with affirmative on a content level. Aff gets everything while the neg is left with breadcrumbs. Kills fairness since the neg is always on the backfoot and no edu as we read backfile generics and try to outtech.Voters -1~ Education – 2-month time limit on the topic means every round is valuable. Specific education about the direct question the resolution asks is the only take away we get from this event. Precision in what they aff can read forces concise topic research in a limited area that allows us to deeply explore every area of the topic.2~ Fairness – Fairness controls engagement with the 1AC and what we are actually able to do in the round. If the game stops becoming fair we have no reason to play in the first place. If every round was 80/20 skewed towards the aff then no one would ever be able to play the game. Fairness is key to clash and is an internal link into any of their offenseParadigms -Extra T is drop the debater – We indict your ability to read and garner offense from the affirmative in the first place. DTA on this shell means drop the aff as a whole anyway. The more the aff drops offense to meet the shell the less they solve and you can vote on presumption.Competing interps over reasonability – Reasonability is always arbitrary and can never set a Brightline on what is reasonable and what isn't. Extra T is a question of models not specific affirmatives or rounds.No RVIs on Extra T –1~ Extra T is a gateway issue for the negative towards the affirmative. Affirmative is always proactive towards topicality while the neg is forced to always be reactive towards the affirmative. The ground is skewed because we always have to hyper tailor T args to the affirmative while the aff can infinitely prep out the 6 T shells on the Topic2~ Illogical – You don't get to win for following the rules. That's like me getting to win because I didn't read 8 condo positions3~ Deterrence – Winning you are topical isn't justification for an aff ballot. Deters debaters from calling out untopical affs against techier opponents because they will always lose on the flow even if they are true. Shouldn't actively punish for trying to meet the rules of the game.Extra T outweighs 1AR theory –1~ Extra T is a forced reaction to untopical affs, even if we did something wrong, you drew first blood. Any abuse from the negative is predicated by abuse from the affirmative. | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - Extra T - OSPEC v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin Off 4Interpretation – The affirmative can only garner offense from the appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust. To clarify, no garnering offense off of methods to solve private entities appropriating outer space such as treaties or actor action.Violation – They have extra offense from prohibition by states and the circumvention and stuff that it preventsStandards:1~ Limits – Only our interp accurately sets the upper limit to the topic. The CI will let the aff garner offense from any possible way to reduce property rights/private appropriation, which can range from treaties like OST, PTD, Common Heritage or state/actor action, which there are hundreds of. 0 chance the neg can prep for all possible offense relating to space possible and forces random LARP generics, killing fairness.2~ Strat-Skew – Open ended interpretations that allow public companies to appropriate literally anything in space leads to infinite 1ACs. Forces the negative to allows fall back onto generics that can never have the potential to engage with affirmative on a content level. Aff gets everything while the neg is left with breadcrumbs. Kills fairness since the neg is always on the backfoot and no edu as we read backfile generics and try to outtech. | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - Extra T - OSPEC v3Tournament: Sunvite | Round: Octas | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Eric He, Daniel Shatzkin, Nethmin Liyanage OffInterpretation – The affirmative can only garner offense from the appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust. To clarify, no garnering offense off of methods to solve private entities appropriating outer space such as treaties or actor action.Violation – They use the Public Trust Doctrine and solve impacts using its implementationStandards:1~ Limits – Only our interp accurately sets the upper limit to the topic. The CI will let the aff garner offense from any possible way to reduce property rights/private appropriation, which can range from treaties like OST, PTD, Common Heritage or state/actor action, which there are hundreds of. 0 chance the neg can prep for all possible offense relating to space possible and forces random LARP generics, killing fairness.2~ Strat-Skew – Open ended interpretations that allow public companies to appropriate literally anything in space leads to infinite 1ACs. Forces the negative to allows fall back onto generics that can never have the potential to engage with affirmative on a content level. Aff gets everything while the neg is left with breadcrumbs. Kills fairness since the neg is always on the backfoot and no edu as we read backfile generics and try to outtech.Voters -1~ Education – 2-month time limit on the topic means every round is valuable. Specific education about the direct question the resolution asks is the only take away we get from this event. Precision in what they aff can read forces concise topic research in a limited area that allows us to deeply explore every area of the topic.2~ Fairness – Fairness controls engagement with the 1AC and what we are actually able to do in the round. If the game stops becoming fair we have no reason to play in the first place. If every round was 80/20 skewed towards the aff then no one would ever be able to play the game. Fairness is key to clash and is an internal link into any of their offenseParadigms -Extra T is drop the debater – We indict your ability to read and garner offense from the affirmative in the first place. DTA on this shell means drop the aff as a whole anyway. The more the aff drops offense to meet the shell the less they solve and you can vote on presumption.Competing interps over reasonability – Reasonability is always arbitrary and can never set a Brightline on what is reasonable and what isn't. Extra T is a question of models not specific affirmatives or rounds.No RVIs on Extra T –1~ Extra T is a gateway issue for the negative towards the affirmative. Affirmative is always proactive towards topicality while the neg is forced to always be reactive towards the affirmative. The ground is skewed because we always have to hyper tailor T args to the affirmative while the aff can infinitely prep out the 6 T shells on the Topic2~ Illogical – You don't get to win for following the rules. That's like me getting to win because I didn't read 8 condo positionsExtra T outweighs 1AR theory –1~ Extra T is a forced reaction to untopical affs, even if we did something wrong, you drew first blood. Any abuse from the negative is predicated by abuse from the affirmative. | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - Extra T - OSPEC v4Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: Octas | Opponent: Wilcox KM | Judge: Luke Bagdon, Zachary Reshovsky, Michael Harris Interpretation – The affirmative can only garner offense from the appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust. To clarify, no garnering offense off of methods to solve private entities appropriating outer space such as treaties or actor action.Violation – They have extra offense from -Standards:1~ Limits – Only our interp accurately sets the upper limit to the topic. The CI will let the aff garner offense from any possible way to reduce property rights/private appropriation, which can range from treaties like OST, PTD, Common Heritage or state/actor action, which there are hundreds of. 0 chance the neg can prep for all possible offense relating to space possible and forces random LARP generics, killing fairness.2~ Strat-Skew – Open ended interpretations that allow public companies to appropriate literally anything in space leads to infinite 1ACs. Forces the negative to allows fall back onto generics that can never have the potential to engage with affirmative on a content level. Aff gets everything while the neg is left with breadcrumbs. Kills fairness since the neg is always on the backfoot and no edu as we read backfile generics and try to outtech.Voters -1~ Education – 2-month time limit on the topic means every round is valuable. Specific education about the direct question the resolution asks is the only take away we get from this event. Precision in what they aff can read forces concise topic research in a limited area that allows us to deeply explore every area of the topic.2~ Fairness – Fairness controls engagement with the 1AC and what we are actually able to do in the round. If the game stops becoming fair we have no reason to play in the first place. If every round was 80/20 skewed towards the aff then no one would ever be able to play the game. Fairness is key to clash and is an internal link into any of their offenseParadigms -Extra T is drop the debater – We indict your ability to read and garner offense from the affirmative in the first place. DTA on this shell means drop the aff as a whole anyway. The more the aff drops offense to meet the shell the less they solve and you can vote on presumption.Competing interps over reasonability – Reasonability is always arbitrary and can never set a Brightline on what is reasonable and what isn't. Extra T is a question of models not specific affirmatives or rounds.No RVIs on Extra T –1~ Extra T is a gateway issue for the negative towards the affirmative. Affirmative is always proactive towards topicality while the neg is forced to always be reactive towards the affirmative. The ground is skewed because we always have to hyper tailor T args to the affirmative while the aff can infinitely prep out the 6 T shells on the Topic2~ Illogical – You don't get to win for following the rules. That's like me getting to win because I didn't read 8 condo positions3~ Deterrence – Winning you are topical isn't justification for an aff ballot. Deters debaters from calling out untopical affs against techier opponents because they will always lose on the flow even if they are true. Shouldn't actively punish for trying to meet the rules of the game.Extra T outweighs 1AR theory –1~ Extra T is a forced reaction to untopical affs, even if we did something wrong, you drew first blood. Any abuse from the negative is predicated by abuse from the affirmative. | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Heg DATournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Sohum Tiwary Off 2 –Russia and China rapidly developing space weaponsDonovan 21 It's imperative America preserve its space power advantage By Matthew Donovan Matthew Donovan is the director of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies' Spacepower Advantage Research Center. He previously served as the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, the acting secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the undersecretary of the Air Force. He also served on the Senate Armed Services Committee as majority policy director and a professional staff member. He served more than 30 years as an active-duty airmen before retiring in 2008. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/04/27/its-imperative-america-preserve-its-space-power-advantage/ avery Russia and China pulling ahead of the U.S. in space weaponsHerman, Marisa. "Russia, China Step up Orbital Attacks as Biden Fumbles Space Force Mission." Newsmax, 3 Dec. 2021, www.newsmax.com/platinum/space-force-china-russia-biden/2021/12/03/id/1047193/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021. Private sector is the silver bullet – Only way to maintain hegemonyWeichert 21 The Future of Space Exploration Depends on the Private Sector By BRANDON J. WEICHERT July 5, 2021 6:30 AM BRANDON J. WEICHERT is the author of "WINNING SPACE: HOW AMERICA REMAINS A SUPERPOWER" (Republic Book Publishers). He runs THE WEICHERT REPORT: WORLD NEWS DONE RIGHT and is a contributor at the Asia Times. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-future-of-space-exploration-depends-on-the-private-sector/~~#slide-1 avery Primacy solves arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - Heg DA v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin Off 1Russia and China are developing weapons to attack US space supremacyDonovan 21 It's imperative America preserve its space power advantage By Matthew Donovan Matthew Donovan is the director of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies' Spacepower Advantage Research Center. He previously served as the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, the acting secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the undersecretary of the Air Force. He also served on the Senate Armed Services Committee as majority policy director and a professional staff member. He served more than 30 years as an active-duty airmen before retiring in 2008. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/04/27/its-imperative-america-preserve-its-space-power-advantage/ avery The US military wants Starlink to help it maintain communication supremacyBuenconsejo 20 SpaceX's 'Cleverly Engineered' Starlink Satellites Could Improve US Military Communications Against Potential Threats: Air Force Acquisition Chief is Impressed Urian B., Tech Times 24 September 2020, 08:09 pm Urian Buenconsejo https://www.techtimes.com/articles/252827/20200924/spacexs-cleverly-engineered-starlink-improve-military-communications-against-potential-threats.htm Urian Buenconsejo Senior Copywriter/Journalist at Tech Times avery China and Russia developing weapons to counter US satellites, which are key to US hegErwin 21 U.S. generals planning for a space war they see as all but inevitable by Sandra Erwin — September 17, 2021https:spacenews.com/u-s-generals-planning-for-a-space-war-they-see-as-all-but-inevitable/ Sandra Erwin writes about military space programs, policy, technology and the industry that supports this sector. She has covered the military, the Pentagon, Congress and the defense industry for nearly two decades as editor of NDIA's National Defense Magazine and Pentagon correspondent for Real Clear Defense. avery Space warfare leads to nuclear warJohnson-Freese 17 Joan Johnson-Freese is a Professor and former Chair of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, and author of several books. Pg 18-19 SPACE WARFARE IN THE 21ST CENTURY https://www.routledge.com/Space-Warfare-in-the-21st-Century-Arming-the-Heavens/Johnson-Freese/p/book/9781138693883 avery We hijack their nuclear war impactPrimacy solves arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - Heg DA v3Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ridge MK | Judge: Kayla Graham SpaceX sats k2 US hegBuenconsejo 20 SpaceX's 'Cleverly Engineered' Starlink Satellites Could Improve US Military Communications Against Potential Threats: Air Force Acquisition Chief is Impressed Urian B., Tech Times 24 September 2020, 08:09 pm Urian Buenconsejo https://www.techtimes.com/articles/252827/20200924/spacexs-cleverly-engineered-starlink-improve-military-communications-against-potential-threats.htm Urian Buenconsejo Senior Copywriter/Journalist at Tech Times avery Private sector is the silver bullet – Only way to maintain hegemonyWeichert 21 The Future of Space Exploration Depends on the Private Sector By BRANDON J. WEICHERT July 5, 2021 6:30 AM BRANDON J. WEICHERT is the author of "WINNING SPACE: HOW AMERICA REMAINS A SUPERPOWER" (Republic Book Publishers). He runs THE WEICHERT REPORT: WORLD NEWS DONE RIGHT and is a contributor at the Asia Times. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-future-of-space-exploration-depends-on-the-private-sector/~~#slide-1 avery Primacy solves arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ Turns their 2nd advantage completely | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Heg DA v4Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 3 | Opponent: All Saints Episcopal RL | Judge: Jack Daou Russia and China are rapidly pulling ahead of the U.S. in space weapons that will be key for future conflictsHerman, Marisa. "Russia, China Step up Orbital Attacks as Biden Fumbles Space Force Mission." Newsmax, 3 Dec. 2021, www.newsmax.com/platinum/space-force-china-russia-biden/2021/12/03/id/1047193/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021. TagBuenconsejo 20 SpaceX's 'Cleverly Engineered' Starlink Satellites Could Improve US Military Communications Against Potential Threats: Air Force Acquisition Chief is Impressed Urian B., Tech Times 24 September 2020, 08:09 pm Urian Buenconsejo https://www.techtimes.com/articles/252827/20200924/spacexs-cleverly-engineered-starlink-improve-military-communications-against-potential-threats.htm Urian Buenconsejo Senior Copywriter/Journalist at Tech Times avery Private sector is the silver bullet – Only way to maintain hegemonyWeichert 21 The Future of Space Exploration Depends on the Private Sector By BRANDON J. WEICHERT July 5, 2021 6:30 AM BRANDON J. WEICHERT is the author of "WINNING SPACE: HOW AMERICA REMAINS A SUPERPOWER" (Republic Book Publishers). He runs THE WEICHERT REPORT: WORLD NEWS DONE RIGHT and is a contributor at the Asia Times. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-future-of-space-exploration-depends-on-the-private-sector/~~#slide-1 avery Primacy solves arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Heg DA v5Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Jonah Gentleman Russia and China are rapidly pulling ahead of the U.S. in space weapons that will be key for future conflictsHerman, Marisa. "Russia, China Step up Orbital Attacks as Biden Fumbles Space Force Mission." Newsmax, 3 Dec. 2021, www.newsmax.com/platinum/space-force-china-russia-biden/2021/12/03/id/1047193/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021. Private sector is the silver bullet – Only way to maintain hegemonyWeichert 21 The Future of Space Exploration Depends on the Private Sector By BRANDON J. WEICHERT July 5, 2021 6:30 AM BRANDON J. WEICHERT is the author of "WINNING SPACE: HOW AMERICA REMAINS A SUPERPOWER" (Republic Book Publishers). He runs THE WEICHERT REPORT: WORLD NEWS DONE RIGHT and is a contributor at the Asia Times. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-future-of-space-exploration-depends-on-the-private-sector/~~#slide-1 avery Primacy solves arms races and great power war – unipolarity is sustainable, and prevents power vacuums and global escalationBrands 18 ~(Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump," Page 129-133~ | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Moral ParticularismTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MC | Judge: Becca Traber Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery It is the burden of the affirmative to be able to prove that in every instance we have a moral obligation to do what they propose.Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR4~ Negation Theory - "to negate" means "to deny the truth of," which means any argument that renders the resolution false is sufficient to negate.5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate10~ Side Burdens – Neg burden is to deny the aff, so proving no reason to do the aff means you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersF~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 1/8/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v2Tournament: BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Iyana Trotman NC:Framing:Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersE~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 1/28/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v3Tournament: BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Jeffery Swift NC:Framing:Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR4~ Negation Theory - "to negate" means "to deny the truth of," which means any argument that renders the resolution false is sufficient to negate.5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate10~ Side Burdens – Neg burden is to deny the aff, so proving no reason to do the aff means you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersE~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 1/28/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v4Tournament: BARKLEY FORUM FOR HIGH SCHOOLS | Round: 6 | Opponent: Bronx Science NK | Judge: Nigel Taylor-Ward Framing:Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR4~ Negation Theory - "to negate" means "to deny the truth of," which means any argument that renders the resolution false is sufficient to negate.5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate10~ Side Burdens – Neg burden is to deny the aff, so proving no reason to do the aff means you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 1/29/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v5Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ridge MK | Judge: Kayla Graham Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Furthermore, the affirmative's obligation is to prove that the resolution is true. If we the negative are able to show that the affirmative has done insufficient work to prove its truth, then you can negate.The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles. Not only is their framework a form of a broad moral principle, but also their defense of the resolution. It is a broad moral statement that refuses to acknowledge the nuance and exceptions within moral principles. Rather than doing a broad analysis of specific private entities appropriating outer space, the affirmative only speaks in broad terms which is problematic for reaching true morality.Offense:As an example, SSP, or Space Solar Power is viable and requires privatization.Oberhaus 21 ~DANIEL OBERHAUS, "Space Solar Power: An Extraterrestrial Energy Resource For The U.S.," Innovation Frontier Project, August 18, 2021. https://innovationfrontier.org/space-solar-power-an-extraterrestrial-energy-resource-for-the-u-s/~~ CT Here we have proven an exception to the broad moral principle of the affirmative. SSPs are an example of the appropriation of outer space by private entities being just. This card on its own is a reason to vote negative since it disproves the affirmative. However, it also bolsters the claims of our framework. | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v6Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 3 | Opponent: All Saints Episcopal RL | Judge: Jack Daou Framing:Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR4~ Negation Theory - "to negate" means "to deny the truth of," which means any argument that renders the resolution false is sufficient to negate.5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate10~ Side Burdens – Neg burden is to deny the aff, so proving no reason to do the aff means you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersE~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v7Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Cheyenne Central GH | Judge: Jonah Gentleman Framing:Even if there's an objective morality or conception of justice, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR5~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true6~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the aff7~ Squo Burden – The affs burden is to prove we do anything but the squo so presume neg if the aff can't prove that8~ Status Quo Bias – you should default to a world where you don't make change because making change assumes that world will be better than the current world9~ Absent morality nothing is unjust, so you negate10~ Side Burdens – Neg burden is to deny the aff, so proving no reason to do the aff means you negate11~ Infinite prep time – aff gets infinite prep time and chooses the field of the debate so presume against them if they can't even give a reason why you affirmNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actionsB~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersE~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - Moral Particularism v8Tournament: 47TH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TOURNAMENT | Round: Octas | Opponent: Wilcox KM | Judge: Luke Bagdon, Zachary Reshovsky, Michael Harris Framing:Even if there's an objective morality, it can't be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptionsLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it's not that nothing's universal, but there's no way to compare or codify values independent of contextLance and Little 6 Mark Norris Lance and Margaret Olivia Little. "Defending Moral Particularism." In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, James Dreier (ed.), 2006. Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Mark Norris Lance is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University Margaret Olivia Little Director, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Associate Professor, Philosophy Department Georgetown University https://philpapers.org/rec/LANPAA-2 avery Permissibility and Presumption negate:1~ Justness – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove something as unilaterally unjust or wrong, and permissibility would deny the existence of wrongness so you presume neg2~ Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Burden of truth – Aff has the burden of truth and needs to prove the res as true4~ Illogical - negating becomes impossible because all defense becomes offense for the affNo new 1AR presumption and permissibility warrants as to why they affirm - becomes a 10-7 timeskew since I don't get new 2nr justificationsOffense:A~ The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions. The affirmative claims the broad moral statement that is the resolution is true, yet doesn't consider that broad moral principles fundamentally cannot be accurate in every instance because of their inability to analyze contexts, thus the aff posits a statement that fundamentally cannot be universally true.B~ Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for itC~ Affirmative's generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principlesD~ MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workersE~ Principles are epistemologically circular – "X action is bad to do because it is bad" means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn't undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle's existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can't be generated outside of engagement with ethical contextsF~ If the aff wants to be able to prove the resolution true, they cannot use a broad moral statement or framework to do so, as it can never analyze specific contexts that need different moral understandings. They must analyze specific contexts, but not only that, they would have to analyze every specific context that resolution posits, aka all the different kinds of private entities and regions of space and prove each of those instances of appropriation to be unjust. | 2/13/22 |
JanFeb - New Affs BadTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MC | Judge: Becca Traber Interpretation: The affirmative must disclose the advocacy of the 1AC or the advantage area of the 1AC upon pairings if the aff is newViolation:Vote Neg:~1~ Limits: the plan case-list on this topic is endless. Hundreds of types of modes of appropriations and private entitiesDisclosing text checks back since it ensures that I can have a reasonable basis for preparation. Also solves any counter-interp offense about why plans are good; you get plans, you should just let the neg know the plan so they can actually prep, not have it sprung on them as a "gotcha" moment.Impacts:a~ Education: they pigeonhole the neg into generics like the wilderson K every single round since I don't have any other prep that can apply to hyperspecfic affs. That leads to shallow repetitive debates: in a world where I have an hour to look at the solvency advocate, I can think out a case-specific strategy, cut some case answers, and read your articles to understand the warrants more thoroughly, which leads to more nuanced, in-depth debates.b~ Fairness: Unbroken plans are unpredictable because they can plan any part of the resolution making it impossible to know which part he's going to specify, which means the neg has to prep every single one of thousands of different plans to have a shot at engaging whereas the aff only has to prep one, creating a massive prep skew. Turns aff flex, even if affirming is harder, which I will contest, you shouldn't be able to eliminate 99 percent of neg prep. My interpretation is key to me being able to have any shot at engaging.~2~ Argument quality: plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot aff's with fringe authors and shoddy solvency. If the aff isn't inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, the case should lose. They had a month to prep – the neg is entitled to some research time to make sure the AFF is inherent, topical, and controversial. Otherwise bad AFF's can win on purely surprise factor, which is a bad model b/c it encourages finding the most fringe surprising case possible instead of a well researched and defensible aff.Voter1. Fairness is a voter since the ballot asks who the better debater is and you can't make that decision accurately if the round is unfair.2. Education is a voter, since A~ it's the only long term benefit we get out of debate, and B~ it's the reason schools fund debate.3. Drop the debater on new affs: A. Their lack of disclosure makes substance irreparable b/c our entire argument is that we did not have a basis to engage the aff to begin with. B. Drop the arg means they lose since they lose their entire advocacy and cannot have offense.4. Competing interps: A. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline- we should set the best norms. B. Collapses- you use offense-defense to determine reasonability being good which concedes the authority of competing interps- saying reasonability is reasonable is circular5. NO RVI A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I'm unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we're both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell. C. Illogical: being fair isn't a reason you should win, it's a prima-facie burden for both sides. | 1/8/22 |
JanFeb - T - AppropriationTournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin Off 5T – AppropriationInterp – Use of LEO by mega-constellations does not qualify as appropriationJohnson 20 The Legal Status of MegaLEO Constellations and Concerns About Appropriation of Large Swaths of Earth Orbit Christopher D. Johnson https://swfound.org/media/206951/johnson2020_referenceworkentry_thelegalstatusofmegaleoconstel.pdf avery | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - T - Private EntitiesTournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin Off 3Interpretation and violation, private entities exclude publicly held companiesUpcounsel ND (https://www.upcounsel.com/private-entity, ND, UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies such as Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb. avery Non-Exhaustive list of topical companies. Bigelow Aerospace, Inc. Blue Origin LLC. Copenhagen Suborbitals. Deep Space Industries. Frontier Astronautics LLC. Intelsat. Masten Space. Moon Express (MoonEx). Planetary Resources. Rocketplane, Ltd. Scaled Composites, LLC. Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) Space Systems. Space Information Labs (SIL). The Spaceship Company. SpaceX. Ventions, LLC. Virgin Galactic LLC. XCOR Aerospace. List of companies that are public – things the aff can't affect. ALCOA Inc. Alliant Techsystems Astrotech Corp B/E Aerospace The Boeing Company Curtiss-Wright Corporation . Ducommun, Inc. Essex Corporation GenCorp, Inc. General Dynamics General Electric Harris Corp Honeywell L-3 Communications LMI Aerospace Inc. Lockheed Martin Moog Inc. Northrop Grumman ORBCOMM Inc. Orbit International Orbital Sciences Precision Castparts Raytheon Rockwell Collins SpaceDev. SpaceHab Teledyne Technologies, Inc TransDigm Group Inc. United Launch Alliance United Technologies Standards -1~ Limits – Only our interp accurately sets the upper limit to the topic. Counter interps that allow publicly traded companies blows the lid off the topic and means an aff can now indict ANY COMPANY in existence no matter its legal status as private entity or not. Destroys legal distinctions and forces a divestment from the topic literature base which explodes prep burdens for the negative.2~ Precision – Private entities is a legal term of art. Only affs that accurately cohere to already agreed upon legal definitions are predictable. Precise readings of the topic allow us to get to the core controversy of the topic and discuss the nuances within it. Only 2 months to discuss the topic means we should discuss the right topic.3~ Ground – Only our interp correctly divides ground in both directions. Open ended topics make both sides reach for ends of the universe in what they run to be unpredictable because anything somewhat related is allowed.4~ Strat-Skew and Clash – Open ended interpretations that allow public companies to exist under the affirmatives action leads to infinite 1ACs. Force the negative to allows fall back onto generics that can never have the potential to engage with affirmative on a content level. Aff gets everything while the neg is left with breadcrumbs.Voters1~ Education – 2 month time limit on the topic means every round is valuable. Specific education about the direct question the resolution asks is the only take away we get from this event. Precision in what they aff can read forces concise topic research in a limited area that allows us to deeply explore every area of the topic.2~ Fairness – Fairness controls engagement with the 1AC and what we are actually able to do in the round. If the game stops becoming fair we have no reason to palay in the first place. If every round was 80/20 skewed towards the aff then no one would ever be able to play the game. Fairness is key to clash and is an internal link into any of their offenseTopicality is drop the debater – We indict your ability to read and garner offense from the affirmative in the first place. Drop the argument on T also decks the entire aff so they are equivalent. The more the aff drops offense to meet the shell the less they solve and you can vote on presumption.Competing interps over reasonability – Reasonability is always arbitrary and can never set a Brightline on what is reasonable and what isn't. T is a question of models not specific affirmatives or rounds.No RVIs on T –1~ T is a gateway issue for the negative towards the affirmative. Affirmative is always proactive towards topicality while the neg is forced to always be reactive towards the affirmative. The ground is skewed because we always have to hyper tailor T args to the affirmative while the aff can infinitely prep out the 6 T shells on the Topic.2~ Illogical – You don't get to win for following the rules. That's like me getting to win because I didn't read 8 condo positions3~ Deterrence – Winning you are topical isn't justification for an aff ballot. Deters debaters from calling out untopical affs against techier opponents because they will always lose on the flow even if they are true. Shouldn't actively punish for trying to meet the rules of the game.T outweighs 1AR theory –1~ T is a forced reaction to untopical affs, even if we did something wrong, you drew first blood. Any abuse from the negative is predicated by abuse from the affirmative.2~ All theory collapses to reasonability. Evaluate competing interps about the rules of the topic before arbitrary discussion of the rules of the game. | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - UNCOPUOUS CPTournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Sohum Tiwary Off 3 –Counterplan Text: The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOUS) should create and operate a space leasing systemThe CP is goldilocks – maintains the integrity of OST while allowing national and private use of outer spacePershing 19 Interpreting the Outer Space Treatys NonAppropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today Abigail '. Pershing† Abigail D. Pershing, Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today, 44 Yale J. Int'l L. (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol44/iss1/5 Abigail D. Pershing, Yale Law School avery Independently, commercial space innovation stops extinctionCharles Beames 18, Chairman of the SmallSat Alliance, Executive Chairman of York Space Systems, former Principal Director of Space and Intelligence in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(ATandL)), Col. (ret.) in the USAF where he served 23 years in space and intelligence leadership positions around the world, 8/8/18, "Op-ed | SmallSat Alliance is on a path toward a new space horizon," https://spacenews.com/op-ed-smallsat-alliance-is-on-a-path-toward-a-new-space-horizon/ Case –CP Solves legal framework, hold accountableSpace mining non-uq, countries will do it too, too far in the future to knowWhy we no see space dust nowHaynes nonuq to privateUS needs better waeapons and sats from private companies to solve for this betterMultilat –1~ Advantage is extra T, res only asks whether or not appropriation is bad but this entire advantage is predicated on clearing up foreign relations through the plan, not that private entities appropriating is badWemer card is terrible, only says cooperation will be k2 solving the impact but doesn't explain how or why. So many things thump climate change, Russia and China don't wanna work with the US,2~ Russia and China already pulling ahead, US needs to keep up, plan bans so Russia and China automatically militarize space, turns space arms race since Russia and China win but US will futilely try to fight back and in the process trigger warKareiva – thumped and you have no warrants for solvency or the internal link to this, you simply state it, also people want to solve it anywayTipson 13 – No clue when this natural disaster is going to be, impossible to solve tectonic plates moving, Wemer card still doesn't internal link to this – no explanation | 1/9/22 |
JanFeb - UNCOPUOUS CP v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 6 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Daniel Shatzkin Off 2Counterplan Text: The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOUS) should create and operate a space leasing systemThe CP is goldilocks – maintains the integrity of OST while allowing national and private use of outer spacePershing 19 Interpreting the Outer Space Treatys NonAppropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today Abigail '. Pershing† Abigail D. Pershing, Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today, 44 Yale J. Int'l L. (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol44/iss1/5 Abigail D. Pershing, Yale Law School avery Independently, commercial space innovation stops extinctionCharles Beames 18, Chairman of the SmallSat Alliance, Executive Chairman of York Space Systems, former Principal Director of Space and Intelligence in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(ATandL)), Col. (ret.) in the USAF where he served 23 years in space and intelligence leadership positions around the world, 8/8/18, "Op-ed | SmallSat Alliance is on a path toward a new space horizon," https://spacenews.com/op-ed-smallsat-alliance-is-on-a-path-toward-a-new-space-horizon/ | 1/9/22 |
NovDec - Moral ParticularismTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ardsley ZS | Judge: Jenn Melin Framing: The standard is consistency with moral particularism Even if there’s an objective morality, it can’t be transcendent like a scientific law—moral judgements depend upon lower-level laws that require exceptions Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it’s not that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context It is the burden of the affirmative to be able to prove that in every instance we have a moral obligation to do what they propose. Permissibility and Presumption negate: 1 Obligations – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation – burden of proof proves 2 Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt. 3 Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR Offense: A The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions B Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for it C Affirmative’s generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principles D MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workers E Principles are epistemologically circular – “X action is bad to do because it is bad” means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn’t undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle’s existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can’t be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 12/4/21 |
NovDec - Moral Particularism v2Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Jalyn Wu Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it’s not that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context It is the burden of the affirmative to be able to prove that in every instance we have a moral obligation to do what they propose. Permissibility and Presumption negate: 1 Obligations – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation – burden of proof proves 2 Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt. 3 Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR Offense: A The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions B Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for it C Affirmative’s generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principles D MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action, and actual governmental bodies contest bills because of specific instances, like how the bill hurts their specific town/city and specific workers E Induction fails – Consequentialism relies on interpreting the past to predict the future. That doesn’t work because the only justification for such logic is that it has worked in the past. The argument is circular. Consequentialism fails when there’s no way to predict the consequences of an action. F Principles are epistemologically circular – “X action is bad to do because it is bad” means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn’t undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle’s existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can’t be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts G Medical strikes increased mortality for children by 75 and result in preventable deaths for the poor on a massive scale, clearly showing certain strikes as not very just and is an independent reason to vote neg under MP | 12/4/21 |
NovDec - T - Just GovTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AL | Judge: Tara Riggs Just is defined as ‘acting in conformity with what is morally upright’ according to Merriam Webster The USFG is racist. Violation: Being racist is not in line with being morally upright 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 – Their interpretation opens debate up to hundreds of potential unjust governments with different labor regulations and socioeconomic conditions which explodes the burden for neg prep. An ideal government is best, we can prep what that would look like and defend our interpretation. 3 Philosophical education – It allows us to debate principles in the abstract about how a perfect government ought to act. It outweighs since every other topic is about specific states, but we only get this education for 2 months. Fairness is a voter – its intrinsic to any competitive activity Education is a voter – it’s the reason schools fund debate and host tournaments Drop the debater – 1 it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm 2 Dropping the argument on T would be dropping the advocacy which is functionally the same Use competing interps – 1 reasonability is self-serving and arbitrary – they can justify their brightline no matter how abusive it is 2 it invites arbitrary judge intervention, so we won’t know your abuse meter 3) No RVIs – a illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substance | 1/7/22 |
NovDec - The Aff is a Prison Warden in DisguiseTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AL | Judge: Tara Riggs Vote neg for an abolitionist pedagogy that locates itself within a living history of radical anti-carceral movements. You are an educator who can mobilize abolition scholarship for radical ends—that’s the only ethical response to dominant carceral logics which will ensure genocidal violence and extinction. Domestic warfare is the intensely materialized modality of the state. Refining the violent machine only assumes and takes for granted the mystified permeance of domestic warfare as a constant production of targeted suffering against black, brown, and aboriginal peoples and forgoes the possibility of an abolitionist praxis to challenge the premise of these wars. How can we normalize the social liquidation and physical evisceration of entire groups of people under the guise of pursuing “winnable policies?” Raising questions about the types of reforms that are appropriate in response to injustice diverts attention from why we have those injustices in the first place. The alt solves because it avoids false dilemmas and opens the door to more substantive change. Abolition requires departure from reform the aff is ineffective and reinforce system coherence of those systems | 1/7/22 |
SeptOct - Biotech DATournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Brenna McConnell Climate change destroys the world | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - Biotech DA v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Anthony Survance Climate change destroys the world | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - COVID DATournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Brenna McConnell 2 Waiving patents for COVID vaccines doesn’t increase production AND it makes the extended response to current and future pandemics worse | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - COVID DA v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Anthony Survance 2 Waiving patents for COVID vaccines doesn’t increase production AND it makes the extended response to current and future pandemics worse | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - COVID Reps KTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Nathan Frenkel | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - COVID Reps K v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Anthony Survance Drop the debater – judges have an ethical obligation to foster an atmosphere to education, hold debaters accountable for what they endorse K outweighs everything, Reps K critique in round actions, can’t weigh case against this K because its implications are in round. | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - Cap KTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Nathan Frenkel Malott 18 Capitalism is a bundle of contradictions strapped together by brutal expansion and violence – internal contradictions of labor and capital fuels the expansion and exploitation but simultaneously creates the tools of its own destruction Robinson 18 Mode of production determines the social relations – the capitalistic mode is an inherently unsustainable and expansionary one – causes extinction via overaccumulation, environmental degradation, and mass social crisis Foster 20 Capitalism is a regime of chaos: Ecological Crisis, Unlimited War, and Economic Crisis – the alternative is to invest in a new system of social metabolic production aimed towards socialism CAP OUTWEIGHS – real and exists, it is already barreling itself toward the end, CC is because of capitalist expansion. Outweighs U.S. heg good, its not, its terrible, literally leads to our impx | 12/3/21 |
SeptOct - Cap K v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kyle Kopf Badiou 08“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” – truth is the process from theory to practice, pure theorization divorced of practice and rebellions are essentially reactionary and leads to useless accumulation of ideas and idealist absurdities. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the best method that rebels against the capitalist reactionaries Neilson 21 Capitalist crisis tendencies causes a doom loop – Climate change, economic collapse, rise of neofascism, and international wars – extinction Escalante 18 The alt is to embrace the dual power strategy through party organizing – builds popular support by serving the people, offers accountability measures, and unified in the long-term goal of creating a better society to replace capitalism | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Cap K v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi | 10/17/21 |
SeptOct - Cap K v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi Robinson 18 Mode of production determines the social relations – the capitalistic mode is an inherently unsustainable and expansionary one – causes extinction via overaccumulation, environmental degradation, and mass social crisis Foster 20 Capitalism is a regime of chaos: Ecological Crisis, Unlimited War, and Economic Crisis – the alternative is to invest in a new system of social metabolic production aimed towards socialism | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Cap K v4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington AT | Judge: Fabrice Etienne Fukuda 10 The corporate globalization of the 1AC is capitalism in decay – the next step in neoliberal regulation of markets and expansion of the new age of imperialism. Localization becomes turned into globalization, every decision is now monitored through the lens of market efficient and capitalist expansion. Production becomes continually outsources and expanded in the name of growth Robinson 18 Mode of production determines the social relations – the capitalistic mode is an inherently unsustainable and expansionary one – causes extinction via overaccumulation, environmental degradation, and mass social crisis Foster 20 Capitalism is a regime of chaos: Ecological Crisis, Unlimited War, and Economic Crisis – the alternative is to invest in a new system of social metabolic production aimed towards socialism | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Moral ParticularismTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kyle Kopf Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it’s not that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context A The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions B Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for it C Affirmative’s generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principles D MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Moral Particularism v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi | 10/17/21 |
SeptOct - Moral Particularism v2Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Nikita Tanguturi Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it’s not that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context It is the burden of the affirmative to be able to prove that in every instance we have a moral obligation to do what they propose. Permissibility and Presumption negate: 1 Obligations – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation – burden of proof proves 2 Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt. 3 Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR A a) The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions B Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for it C Affirmative’s generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principles D MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action E Principles are epistemologically circular – “X action is bad to do because it is bad” means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn’t undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle’s existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can’t be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Moral Particularism v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Brendon Morris, Grant Brown, Amanda Ciocca Moral principles frequently have exceptions—it’s not that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context It is the burden of the affirmative to be able to prove that in every instance we have a moral obligation to do what they propose. Permissibility and Presumption negate: 1 Obligations – the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation – burden of proof proves 2 Falsity – Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt. 3 Negating is harder – Aff gets last speech to crystallize and shape the debate in a way the favors them with no 3NR A a) The Affirmative positions itself as moral principle regarding a situation – This makes morality impossible to achieve since we are now constrained by engrained generalizations that fail to account for exceptions within principles - thus negate on presumption since the 1AC can never contextually justify their moral actions B Tying morality to principles causes harmful ethical thought – means we can never adjust our thoughts or break principles even if the situation would be better for it C Affirmative’s generalizations make weighing ethicality between actions impossible – Moral principles will see actions that violate that moral principle as ethically the same – Means we can never decide between conflicting principles and causes the inability to make decisions – Means even if moral principles are good, they make it impossible to act under principles D MP necessary to formulating real world ethical thinking – not all situations are in the same context and require specific moral analysis to derive moral action E Principles are epistemologically circular – “X action is bad to do because it is bad” means we never form justifications for why we should or shouldn’t undergo actions. Principles are self-referential in their justification for that principle’s existence – means principles fall apart on inspection leaving no ground for moral thought. Need contextual situation to epistemologically from reasoning – knowledge formation can’t be generated outside of engagement with ethical contexts | 11/24/21 |
SeptOct - Political Capital DATournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Brenna McConnell Non-Climate issues drain Political Capital – reform doesn’t get passed Any dent in political resources harms – Biden trying right now – k2 solve warming | 12/3/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/13/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
2/13/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
2/13/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/28/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/28/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/29/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
11/24/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
11/24/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
11/24/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
11/24/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
12/4/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
12/4/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/7/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/8/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/9/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/9/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/9/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/7/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
1/7/22 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
12/3/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
12/3/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
| |
12/3/21 | suryawanshia24@ucfsdnet |
|