| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,10 @@ |
|
1 |
+A. Interpretation: If the aff reads a consequentialist framework they must specify which theory of good they defend in the AC. To clarify, this means that the text of the standard must include the type of consequentialism they defend, for example minimizing existential risk or maximizing happiness. Err toward spirit of the interp – abuse is contextualized by the standards and otherwise you permit abuse to occur based on blippy semantic I meets. |
|
2 |
+B. Violation |
|
3 |
+C. Standards |
|
4 |
+a. Stable ground – Each nuance of the ethic entails different obligations and would exclude different offense. MASTIN describes five different theories of good: |
|
5 |
+Luke Mastin, Consequentialism, The basics of philosophy http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html |
|
6 |
+Some consequentialist theories ... of bad outcomes. |
|
7 |
+3 Impacts |
|
8 |
+1. Aff can filter neg responses |
|
9 |
+2. Strat Skew |
|
10 |
+3. Makes the round irresolvable |