Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[26]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-14 18:07:33.537
	1	+2017-01-14 18:07:33.0

Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,97 @@
	1	+===FW===
	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	+====~~1~~ 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	+====And, ethics requires an autonomous will because otherwise culpability is nonsensical.====
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+===Advocacy===
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====I defend Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I'm open to modifications in CX.====
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+===Contention===
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====Removing restrictions prevents prohibiting speech which is an essential freedom—restrictions in the status quo prevent people from acting on their agency no matter how miniscule the restrictions is. ====
	41	+**Lambert 16** (Saber, writer @ being libertarian, "The Degradation of Free Speech and Personal Liberty," April 9, 2016, https://beinglibertarian.com/the-degradation-of-free-speech-and-personal-liberty///LADI)
	42	+Many individuals in society claim that they live in a free nation full of individual
	43	+AND
	44	+is often paralleled to a form of dictatorship – no matter how miniscule.
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====This outweighs—no hindering a hindrance since arguments aren't intrinsically harmful.====
	48	+**Anderson 6** — Amanda Anderson, Caroline Donovan Professor of English Literature and Department Chair at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Fellow at the School of Criticism and Theory at Cornell University, holds a Ph.D. in English from Cornell University, 2006 ("Reply to My Critic(s)," Criticism, Volume 48, Number 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 289)
	49	+Probyn's piece is a mixture of affective fallacy, argument by authority, and bald
	50	+AND
	51	+of ideas, that your claim to injury somehow damns your opponent's ideas.
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====Consequentially reducing freedom violations isn't how hindering a hindrance works.====
	55	+**Ripstein 9** (Arthur, Professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, and Chair of the Department of Philosophy, "Force and Freedom", Harvard University Press, 2009//LADI)
	56	+If you violate a duty of right, however, others are entitled to hinder
	57	+AND
	58	+made in accordance with rational concepts, but is not exhausted by them.
	59	+
	60	+
	61	+====Their answers are suspect—their authors inject excess grandiose political meaning. Argumentative proceduralism resolves personal violence.====
	62	+**Anderson 6** — Amanda Anderson, Caroline Donovan Professor of English Literature and Department Chair at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Fellow at the School of Criticism and Theory at Cornell University, holds a Ph.D. in English from Cornell University, 2006 ("Reply to My Critic(s)," Criticism, Volume 48, Number 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 285-287)
	63	+Let's first examine the claim that my book is "unwittingly" inviting a resurrection
	64	+AND
	65	+is clearly, and indeed necessarily, significant room for further elaboration here.
	66	+
	67	+
	68	+====My offense turns social justice arguments—lack of free speech re-create the majority/minority divide that means the minority loses out on having their voice heard. Try or die—only the aff has a risk of solving oppressive ideologies.====
	69	+**Cartwright 3** (Will, "Mill on Freedom of Discussion," Richmond Journal of Philosophy 5 (Autumn 2003), http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp5_cartwright.pdf//LADI)
	70	+Though freedom of discussion was widely accepted even in Mill's own day, he thinks
	71	+AND
	72	+balance of risks here makes this argument less persuasive than the other two.
	73	+
	74	+
	75	+===Underview===
	76	+
	77	+
	78	+====Kant Ks don't link to the framework—they only relate to the anthropology he applied to practical reason and moral philosophy. Not only is his political philosophy distinct, it compelled him to revise his racist views.====
	79	+**Kleingeld 7 **(Pauline Kleingeld, Professor at the University of Groningen, "KANT'S SECOND THOUGHTS ON RACE," Philosophical Quarterly, 2007, http://www.rug.nl/staff/pauline.kleingeld/kleingeld-kant-on-race-pq.pdf)
	80	+Kant radically revised his views on race during the 1790s. He gives no indication
	81	+AND
	82	+contrast with his earlier insistence on the weakness and inertia of Native Americans.
	83	+
	84	+
	85	+====Abstraction is great.====
	86	+**Farr '02**
	87	+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.
	88	+Whereas most criticisms are aimed at the formulation of universal law and the formula of
	89	+AND
	90	+equally deplorable to reject the categorical imperative without first exploring its emancipatory potential.
	91	+
	92	+
	93	+====Problems with ethical theories stem from the nature of us, not moral phil.====
	94	+**Wood** ~~Kantian Ethics ALLEN W. WOOD Stanford University~~
	95	+There is no plausibility at all, for example, in the suggestion that such
	96	+AND
	97	+itself is actually responsible for a lot of the evil that people do.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-14 18:07:35.260

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+neal kapoor

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+bronx jo

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+26

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+jf - 1ac - KANTlleges

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+lex