Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-04 22:12:30.633
	1	+2016-11-04 22:12:30.0

Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,97 @@
	1	+===Framework===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth—that means we must treat others as ends in themselves.====
	5	+**Korsgaard '83** (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS
	6	+The argument shows how Kant's idea of justification works. It can be read as
	7	+AND
	8	+-and, in general, to make the highest good our end.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====The standard is consistency with universal law.====
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Practical reason solves regress—it's impossible to deny reason's authority.====
	15	+**Velleman** (David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19)
	16	+As we have seen, requirements that depend for their force on some external source
	17	+AND
	18	+something self-defeating about asking for a reason to act for reasons.
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====~~2~~ Only the categorical imperative allows for an autonomous will—my framework is self-imposed by the structure of the will, so the will can be the cause of itself.====
	22	+**Korsgaard** (Christine, Morality as Freedom, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~~korsgaar/CMK.Morality.as.Freedom.pdf) OS
	23	+We are here confronted with a deep problem of a familiar kind. If you
	24	+AND
	25	+be an autonomous will at all. It has to choose a law.
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====All claims to freedom are provisional until brought under the public right. It is a contradiction to will a world in which one's will can be denied—this necessitates an omnilateral will. ====
	29	+**Kant** (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781) ***bracketed for gendered language***
	30	+When I declare (by word or deed), "I will that an external
	31	+AND
	32	+a thing can be externally yours or mine only in a civil society.
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+===Advocacy===
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====I defend the resolution as a general principle. Specific type of limiting is irrelevant—it's a question of the general maxim behind QI. You can link disads to any type of QI limitation.====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+===Contention 1 is Tort Law===
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====QI stops tort litigation.====
	45	+**Chen 06**
	46	+Chen, Alan K. (Professor @ University of Denver Sturm College of Law)"The Facts about Qualified Immunity." Emory Law Journal 55.2 (2006): 229-278. ~~Premier~~
	47	+The law provides a damages action to people whose constitutional rights have been violated
	48	+AND
	49	+acts. 24 She may still, however, assert qualified immunity.
	50	+
	51	+
	52	+====That's a violation of universal law—both positive and negative duties obligate us to always pay damages.====
	53	+**Ripstein 04 **
	54	+Arthur, pf of law @ UToronto, PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER NO. 04-02 THE DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND THE LAW OF TORT ARTHUR ~~Premier~~
	55	+All of these effects that one person might have on another are consistent with each
	56	+AND
	57	+to your ability to set and pursue your own conception of the good.
	58	+
	59	+
	60	+===Contention 2 is the Constitution===
	61	+
	62	+
	63	+====And, QI means we never clearly define constitutional rights, which causes infinite violations over time.====
	64	+**Beerman 9**
	65	+Jack Michael Beermann (Professor of Law and Harry Elwood Warren Scholar, Boston University School of Law). "Qualified Immunity And Constitutional Avoidance." Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-51 (December 2, 2009). http://www.bu.edu/law/workingpapers-archive/documents/beermannj120209.pdf ~~Premier~~
	66	+Pearson is another entry in the Court's struggle to resolve a serious problem created by
	67	+AND
	68	+federal courts were required to reach the constitutional merits before deciding on immunity.
	69	+
	70	+
	71	+===Contention 3 is Police===
	72	+
	73	+
	74	+====Lawsuits solve rights violations.====
	75	+**Gilles '01** (Mirriam, Assistant Professor, Cardozo Law School, "In Defense of making Government Pay: The Deterrent Effect of Constitutional Tort Remedies," Georgia Law Review, Vol. 35, 2001.) OS bracketed for gender
	76	+The question of whether constitutional tort remedies serve any deterrent effect is, I think
	77	+AND
	78	+the knowledge that a suspect might sue for damages has no inhibitory effect.
	79	+
	80	+
	81	+===Underview===
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====Abstraction is great.====
	85	+**Farr '02**
	86	+Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. JDN.
	87	+Whereas most criticisms are aimed at the formulation of universal law and the formula of
	88	+AND
	89	+equally deplorable to reject the categorical imperative without first exploring its emancipatory potential.
	90	+
	91	+
	92	+====The Kantian subject is the embodied subject.====
	93	+**Farr '02**
	94	+Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32.
	95	+One of the most popular criticisms of Kant's moral philosophy is that it is too
	96	+AND
	97	+choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-04 22:12:32.142

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+louie kollar

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+millard north gb

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+nd - 1ac - qANTified immANUELity

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+apple valley