Walt Whitman Yamamoto Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | American Heritage Broward MC | Luke Gastelu |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 4 | Stuyvesant LC | Annie Wang |
|
|
| |
| x | Finals | x | x |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MC | Judge: Luke Gastelu AC - Kant |
| Yale | 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Annie Wang AC - Practical Reason |
| x | Finals | Opponent: x | Judge: x Contact Info |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
00 - Contact InfoTournament: x | Round: Finals | Opponent: x | Judge: x Please tell me if there are any specific interps you would like me to meet before round (spikes on top, rob spec, etc.) This is terminal defense to your shell. Feel free to message me if there are some docs you can't access - I'll send them to you. I don't have any triggers, but please tell me if you have any before the round so it can be as accessible and comfortable as possible. | 9/12/21 |
SeptOct AC - Practical Reason v1Tournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward MC | Judge: Luke Gastelu ACFramingThe meta-ethic is practical reason:~1~ Regress – any other justification for ethics can have its authority infinitely questioned, but reason is a self-justifying source of authority which solves. Asking why use reasons intrinsically asks for a reason to use reason which concedes reason's authority.~2~ Collapses – other sources of ethical authority presume a logical system of justification to make them coherent, which means reason functions as a side constraint on other theories and they presuppose the authority of reason.~3~ Action Theory - any action can be divided into infinite states of affairs—only intent can unify our action into intended means and ends.That generates an obligation to follow only universalizable laws. Only universal law can be constitutive of agency because it applies to all agents in all instances. A maxim is universalizable if it can be known by all reasoners and applied to all reasoners without causing a contradiction.Thus the standard is consistency with principles of equal and outer freedom~1~ Universal reason grants agents the right to freedom because acting on a maxim to coerce produces a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ ~2~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW~ ~3~ Value theory – the existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth.Korsgaard 83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Impact calculus –1~ Ethics are based on intent, but the state does not have intentions and cannot know the intentions of other agents. Instead, the state acts a procedural mechanism to punish those who violate rights claims. Those rights are derived from the structure of intent.2~ The state does not have the authority to act to preempt future rights violations, because consequences of action are contingent and cannot be derived from the structure of the maxim on which one acts. Thus, the state does not have the jurisdiction to take them into account.This means if their theory doesn't provide an account of how the state functions they have no offence on the framing debate.Prefer additionally –~1~ Performativity - Truth claims can only be proven by argumentation which contains the axiomatic assumption that freedom is good.Kinsella 11 ~Stephan Kinsella, (Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers.) "Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide" Mises Institute, 5-27-2011, https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-guide, DOA:5-4-2020~ ~2~ Frameworks are an evaluative filter that determines what offence is legitimate and it's a topicality interpretation of the word "ought" – thus all framing must be theoretically justified. Prefer mine –Ought is defined as consistency with the categorical imperative.Durand 01 Kevin K. J. Durand, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Henderson State University. The Logic of Morality: Georg Henrik von Wright, Immanuel Kant, and the "Ought/Can" Inference. Academic Forum, 2000-2001, http://www.hsu.edu/academicforum/2000-2001/2000-1AFThe20Logic20of20Morality.pdf Prefer my interpretation:~a~ Research Burdens—questions of universalizability do not require evidence dumps or statistics to access offense because they don't have to do with empirics—only analytics are necessary to access offense. That outweighs to accessibility—other frameworks are structurally inaccessible to small school debaters since they'll never have as much evidence or big enough back files to win card wars.~b~ Strategic thinking—Kantian offense can be derived purely from reasoning, which allows more innovation from debaters and better in-round strategic thinking—debaters aren't totally reliant on their coach's prep. That outweighs since its portable—thinking on your feet is applicable in every profession.~c~ Philosophical education—my interpretation allows contestation of the role of the state under the categorical imperative—people have argued that Kant justifies anything from libertarianism to socialism.AdvocacyThus I affirm resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.I'll defend the resolution as a general principle, further specification in the doc. This means potential negative implications of reducing protections for certain drugs doesn't link as that's merely a hypothetical instance of an object protected by IP medicine laws. Counterplans and PICs affirm because they do not disprove the general thesis of my advocacy. To resolve means settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter). Since it is in the past tense, the resolution is already the solution so you vote aff since it is already true (definition is hyper linked)All hyper linked and from Merriam Webster - OffenceThere is a distinction between personal rights and property rights – property rights govern material objects that can be appropriated and stolen, however personal rights concern intangible concepts such as ideas and speeches. Thus it is a contradiction to attribute property rights to ideas as an idea can be accessible by all without resource constraints. And even the most stringent property rights allow for copying and modification of a legitimate purchase as a function of the new owner's property rights so it's a freedom violation to restrict doing so. And intellectual property rights actively suppress the freedom of speech, which is necessary for agents to actualize their wills.Pievatolo 10 Pievatolo, Maria. "Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?" Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. WWEY, altered for glang IPP is nonuniversalizable – universalizing the act of restricting the production of a certain medicine terminates in a contradiction because it entails that you restrict your own ability to produce the medicineUnderview~1~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – a) We always default to assuming something true until proven false, or it would be almost impossible to make any claim at all because if the entire burden of proof is to show truth b) If agents had to reflect on every action they take and justify why it was a good one we would never be able to take an action because we would have to justify actions that are morally neutral ie drinking water is not morally right or wrong but if I had to justify my action every time I decided upon a course of action I would never be able to make decisions and freezes action, it's a practical requirement of action.~2~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell and this comes first because time skew means I couldn't respond to all neg args so they're false. And, reject theory and Ks on spikes since it would be a contradiction since they indict each other, but prefer mine since they are lexically prior. This means all contradiction flow aff since I spoke first which makes any contradictions their fault. AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round. Treat each of the spikes as separate offensive theory arguments, which if the neg contests is drop the debater – key to normsetting since it provides strong incentive to set paradigm norms.~3~ If I win one layer vote aff a) The NC is reactive and has the ability to uplayer to exclude or preclude the layer I spend half the round justifying what makes mooting that layer extremely unfair b) I don't have time to win multiple layers since I have to preclude your 2n responses, answer NC arguments, and extend my own in 4 min. As a model becomes complete it becomes less understandable as it becomes just as difficult to understand complex models that have too many parameters leading to insoluble systems, means expanding debate's parameters to the 1NC and onward makes the round irresolvable due to a lack of understanding so just vote aff.~4~ Neg can't read framing issues against aff spikes or use embedded clash – they must line by line. 1AR can't tell the implication of their arguments so negs can outspread me with them in the 2NR – 2AR has no chance to recover because 6-3 time skew and no new 2AR args. Accept aff interpretations since aff speaks first which means they constitutively define the terms of the round, any abuse is solved for you next round which makes fairness a question of your ability to engage in the same practice, any other conception is incoherent since the rules are clearly defined before entering. And, allow new 2ar responses to neg analytics – 1ar too short to answer a blip storm of aprioris and since the implication wasn't articulated completely they aren't full arguments anyways so new responses is implied.~5~ Affirming is harder, a time crunched 1ar makes it uniquely hard to respond to a 7 min dump but the neg has more time to develop their position and make responses – all theory arguments have an implicit aff flex standard because of huge side bias – outweighs neg fairness arguments unless they prove how it uniquely outweighs the disparity since it's structural.Shah 19 Sachin "A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SIDE-BIAS ON THE 2019 JANUARY-FEBRUARY LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE TOPIC" NSD, 15 February 2019. http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/** SJCPJG ~6~ The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false.Prefer: ~A~ Text: Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity. This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are verified. Any other role of the ballot enforces an external norm on debate, but only truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate i.e. proving statements true or false through argumentation. Constitutivism outweighs because you don't have the jurisdiction not to truth test – a practice only makes sense based on its intrinsic rules. Jurisdiction is also an independent voter and a meta constraint since every argument you make concedes the authority of the judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary – otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means it also controls the internal link to fairness since that's definitionally unfair. ~B~ Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, "I am awake" it is the same as "it is true that I am awake" which means they are also a question of truth claims because it's inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren't mutually exclusive with mine. ~C~ Inclusion: Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for inclusive debates because people without every technical skill or comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns your ROB- truth testing solves because you can do what you're good at and so can I. This is also better for education because me engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn't help anyone. o/w since it is a real-world implication in round rather than a thought experiment that doesn't do anything ~7~ The Negative may not contest the Aff Framework if it's Kant – Concession is key to check neg time skew and ability to layer the debate by forcing the debate to one layer where I can weigh–else negs can spread out affs and collapse to the layer I undercover. This controls the internal link to all education args because no clash occurs when negs can just extend dropped layers to win. Concession is best for phil ed and topic lit if it's Kant – cross apply the third point of the TJFs section. And, statistics prove that the neg is at significant advantage, meaning generic responses to timeskew aren't responsive. Timeskew is the strongest link into fairness because it's the only objective measure we have coming into the round. Any theoretical response to this shell is a defensive counter-interp at best because it merely justifies the neg can contest it.1arFwk1~ Reject ad homs – Kant's ideas are important precisely because his abstract ideas were more advanced than his political beliefs and ad homs don't implicate the truth of Kant's theory.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW~ | 9/18/21 |
SeptOct AC - Practical Reason v2Tournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Annie Wang FramingThe meta-ethic is practical reason:~1~ Regress – any other justification for ethics can have its authority infinitely questioned, but reason is a self-justifying source of authority which solves. Asking why use reasons intrinsically asks for a reason to use reason which concedes reason's authority.~2~ Collapses – other sources of ethical authority presume a logical system of justification to make them coherent, which means reason functions as a side constraint on other theories and they presuppose the authority of reason.~3~ Action Theory - any action can be divided into infinite states of affairs—only intent can unify our action into intended means and ends.That generates an obligation to follow only universalizable laws. Only universal law can be constitutive of agency because it applies to all agents in all instances. A maxim is universalizable if it can be known by all reasoners and applied to all reasoners without causing a contradiction.Thus the standard is consistency with principles of equal and outer freedom~1~ Universal reason grants agents the right to freedom because acting on a maxim to coerce produces a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal_Legislation_As_the_Form_of_Practical_Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ ~2~ Inescapability – the exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW~ ~3~ Value theory – the existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth.Korsgaard 83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS Impact calculus –1~ Ethics are based on intent, but the state does not have intentions and cannot know the intentions of other agents. Instead, the state acts a procedural mechanism to punish those who violate rights claims. Those rights are derived from the structure of intent.2~ The state does not have the authority to act to preempt future rights violations, because consequences of action are contingent and cannot be derived from the structure of the maxim on which one acts. Thus, the state does not have the jurisdiction to take them into account.This means if their theory doesn't provide an account of how the state functions they have no offence on the framing debate.Prefer additionally –~1~ Performativity - Truth claims can only be proven by argumentation which contains the axiomatic assumption that freedom is good.Kinsella 11 ~Stephan Kinsella, (Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers.) "Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide" Mises Institute, 5-27-2011, https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-guide, DOA:5-4-2020~ ~2~ Frameworks are an evaluative filter that determines what offence is legitimate and it's a topicality interpretation of the word "ought" – thus all framing must be theoretically justified. Prefer mine –Ought is defined as consistency with the categorical imperative.Durand 01 Kevin K. J. Durand, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Henderson State University. The Logic of Morality: Georg Henrik von Wright, Immanuel Kant, and the "Ought/Can" Inference. Academic Forum, 2000-2001, http://www.hsu.edu/academicforum/2000-2001/2000-1AFThe20Logic20of20Morality.pdf Prefer my interpretation:~a~ Research Burdens—questions of universalizability do not require evidence dumps or statistics to access offense because they don't have to do with empirics—only analytics are necessary to access offense. That outweighs to accessibility—other frameworks are structurally inaccessible to small school debaters since they'll never have as much evidence or big enough back files to win card wars.~b~ Strategic thinking—Kantian offense can be derived purely from reasoning, which allows more innovation from debaters and better in-round strategic thinking—debaters aren't totally reliant on their coach's prep. That outweighs since its portable—thinking on your feet is applicable in every profession.~c~ Philosophical education—my interpretation allows contestation of the role of the state under the categorical imperative—people have argued that Kant justifies anything from libertarianism to socialism.AdvocacyThus I affirm resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.I'll defend the resolution as a general principle, further specification in the doc. This means potential negative implications of reducing protections for certain drugs doesn't link as that's merely a hypothetical instance of an object protected by IP medicine laws. Counterplans and PICs affirm because they do not disprove the general thesis of my advocacy.All hyper linked and from Merriam Webster unless otherwise noted - OffenceThere is a distinction between personal rights and property rights – property rights govern material objects that can be appropriated and stolen, however personal rights concern intangible concepts such as ideas and speeches. Thus it is a contradiction to attribute property rights to ideas as an idea can be accessible by all without resource constraints. And even the most stringent property rights allow for copying and modification of a legitimate purchase as a function of the new owner's property rights so it's a freedom violation to restrict doing so. And intellectual property rights actively suppress the freedom of speech, which is necessary for agents to actualize their wills.Pievatolo 10 Pievatolo, Maria. "Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?" Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. WWEY, altered for glang IPP is nonuniversalizable – universalizing the act of restricting the production of a certain medicine terminates in a contradiction because it entails that you restrict your own ability to produce the medicineUnderview~1~ The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false.Prefer: ~A~ Text: Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution's truth or falsity. This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are verified. Any other role of the ballot enforces an external norm on debate, but only truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate i.e. proving statements true or false through argumentation. Constitutivism outweighs because you don't have the jurisdiction not to truth test – a practice only makes sense based on its intrinsic rules. Jurisdiction is also an independent voter and a meta constraint since every argument you make concedes the authority of the judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary – otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means it also controls the internal link to fairness since that's definitionally unfair. ~B~ Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, "I am awake" it is the same as "it is true that I am awake" which means they are also a question of truth claims because it's inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren't mutually exclusive with mine. ~C~ Inclusion: Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for inclusive debates because people without every technical skill or comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns your ROB- truth testing solves because you can do what you're good at and so can I. This is also better for education because me engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn't help anyone. o/w since it is a real-world implication in round rather than a thought experiment that doesn't do anything ~D~ Isomorphism: ROBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it's solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn't a closest estimate ~2~ The Haitian Revolution proves that enlightenment philosophy is liberatory – reclaiming humanism is the best way to ground radical action which justifies the perm.Buck-Morss 09 ~Susan Buck-Morss, (Susan Buck-Morss is professor of political philosophy and social the- ory in the department of government, Cornell University, and Visit- ing Distinguished Professor in the Public Intellectuals Program, Florida Atlantic University.) "Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History" 2009, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7zwbgz, DOA:9-19-2020 WWBW~ ~3~ AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, under an interp that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell and this comes first because time skew. And, reject theory and Ks on spikes since it would be a contradiction since they indict each other, but prefer mine since they are lexically prior. AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round. Inclusion first is the fallacy of origin – don't apply it. Fairness is a voter debate is a competitive activity wins/losses prove that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Education – the only portable thing from debate and the goal of the activity.~4~ Affirming is harder, a time crunched 1ar makes it uniquely hard to respond to a 7 min dump but the neg has more time to develop their position and make responses – all theory arguments have an implicit aff flex standard because of huge side bias – outweighs neg fairness arguments unless they prove how it uniquely outweighs the disparity since it's structural.Shah 19 Sachin "A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SIDE-BIAS ON THE 2019 JANUARY-FEBRUARY LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE TOPIC" NSD, 15 February 2019. http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/** SJCPJG ~5~ The Negative may not contest the Aff Framework if it's Kant – Concession is key to check neg time skew and ability to layer the debate by forcing the debate to one layer where I can weigh–else negs can spread out affs and collapse to the layer I undercover. This controls the internal link to all education args because no clash occurs when negs can just extend dropped layers to win. Concession is best for phil ed and topic lit if it's Kant – cross apply the third point of the TJFs section. And, statistics prove that the neg is at significant advantage, meaning generic responses to timeskew aren't responsive. Timeskew is the strongest link into fairness because it's the only objective measure we have coming into the round. Any theoretical response to this shell is a defensive counter-interp at best because it merely justifies the neg can contest both layers.~6~ The neg may not read utilitarianism or any consequentialist ethical theory as a standard – a) resolvability: 1~ Induction fails—induction assumes that things will always happen the same way in the future as they have in the past. But this begs the question of how we know what happened in the past will happen in the future. Thus, induction is logically fallacious. 2~ Moral cluelessness—consequences are wholly unknowable and any action can lead to a domino effect that has unpredictable bad consequences in the end which means it can't guide action 3~ Infinite consequences—any harm stretches on into the infinite future and makes it impossible to compare harms—results in calculative regress—you have you calculate how much time to spend calculating and so on—destroys decision-making 4~ Aggregation fails—happiness is only happy for you, but not for me, so you can't compare across people—also can't compare 10 headaches to a migraine to the value of friendship b) psychological violence: util and other consequentialist theories justify atrocities such as slavery if it benefits a marginal majority or for hypothetical benefits that might not even materialize~7~ The neg must only defend the converse of the resolution – The res is a stasis point for both sides so if you do anything other than defending the converse there is no way to plan the 1N strategy. That is supercharged in the context of today's debate in which it is a very widespread practice for the aff to tell the negative debater what aff they are going to read while the aff goes into the round in the dark. Key to fairness because negative will be at an inherent advantage before the round begins. | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | etya3977@gmailcom |
|