Changes for page Mountain View Paranjpe Aff
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 1 added, 11 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism. Korsgaard ONE clarifies: 2 -(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 20) 3 -What distinguishes substantive from procedural realism 4 - which those procedures track.35 5 - 6 -Prefer since substantive realism relies on an implausible epistemology. Korsgaard TWO: 7 -(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 20-21) 8 -Substantive realism conceives the procedures 9 -he meant to make. 10 - 11 -Intersubjectivity first. It explains why we can understand the reasons others have, while still identifying primarily with our own. They stem from humanity. Korsgaard FIVE: 12 -(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 47-48) 13 -There are reasons for caring about these things, , but rather out of respect for the humanity of those who have them. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 00:58:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Michael Harris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Mountain View Paranjpe Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -HW R1 Framework changes - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -hw
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,59 +1,0 @@ 1 -1) The nature of laws implies the state must look to the united will. Ripstein Bracketed for clarity 2 -(Arthur Ripstein, University of Toronto, Force and Freedom. pp 50-51 3 -All people have the right to act for themselves. Kant argues that provision for the poor follows directly from the very idea of a united will. He remarks that the idea of a united lawgiving will requires that citizens regard the state as existing in perpetuity. By this he does not mean to impose an absurd requirement that people live forever,or even the weaker one that it must sustain an adequate population, or make sure that all of its members survive. The state does need to maintain its material preconditions, and as we saw in Chapter 7, this need generates its entitlement to “administer the state’s economy and finance.The state’s existence in perpetuity, however, is presented as a pure normative requirement, grounded in its ability to speak and act for everyone. That ability must be able to survive changes in the state’s membership. You are the same person you were a year ago because your normative principle of organization has stayed the same through changes in the matter making you up. As a being entitled to set and pursue your own purposes, you decide what your continuing body will do. That is why your deeds can be imputed to you even after every molecule in your body has changed, and even if you have forgotten what you did. The unity of your agency is created by the normative principle that makes your actions imputable to you. In the same way, the state must sustain its basic normative principle of organization through time, even as some members die or move away and new ones are born or move in. As we saw in Chapter 7, its unifying principle—“in terms of which alone we can think of the legitimacy of the state”—is the idea of the original contract, through which people are bound by laws they have given themselves through public institutions. The state must have the structure that is required in order for everyone to be bound by it, so that it can legitimately claim to speak and act for all across time. The requirement of unity across time is clear in the cases of legislation by officials: if the official’s decision were only binding while a particular human being held office, a citizen would be entitled to regard laws as void once the official’s term ended. Because each person is master of him- or herself, one person is only bound by the authority of another through the idea of a united will. sustains the legitimacy of So the idea of a united will presupposes some manner in which it exists through time. Past legislation, like past agreement, can only bind those who come after if the structure through which laws are made is one that can bind everyone it governs. 4 - 5 -2) Only rational willing contains unconditional value; facts about the world only have value relative to agents. Korsgaard: 6 -Christine Korsgaard, “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), 182.. 7 -In order for there to be objectively good ends, however, there must be 8 -AND 9 -by reason of their rational choices and so also as ends in themselves. 10 - 11 -Impacts: 12 - 13 -A) only universal reasons generates state obligation since that’s the only thing that everyone can access; pleasure constantly conflicts 14 - 15 -B) this means preserving freedom; the ability to set and pursue ends is shared by all citizens-else they couldn’t choose to be in the contract. 16 - 17 -Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom. 18 - 19 -1AC-Advocacy 20 - 21 -I defend the whole resolution-public colleges and universities in the United States ought not prohibit any Constitutionally protected speech. 22 - 23 -1AC-Contention 24 - 25 -Speech in its self does not constitute a wrong-thus prohibiting it is coercive. 26 -Varden 10 explains 27 - A Kantian Conception of Free Speech Helga Varden, former student of the OG Ripstein, In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer (2010) philpapers.org/rec/VARAKC-5 28 -This distinction between internal and external use of choice and freedom explains why Kant maintains 29 -AND 30 -cannot be seen as involving wrongdoing from the point of view of right. 31 - 32 -Prohibiting something or some activity that is not a wrong is itself a wrong. 33 -Ripstein 09 34 -Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009 35 -Each person’s entitlement to decide how his or her powers will be used precludes prohibiting 36 -AND 37 -you provide me with favorable background conditions to use my own powers.26 38 - 39 -1AC-Underview 40 - 41 -1-Reject specification on aff advocacies unless they can show me a specific disad they lost as a result of my practice-otherwise you didn’t lose any ground; also, 42 - 43 -2-Prefer reasonable aff interpretations on T and spec-the topic is poorly written and there’s a bunch of interpretations; also, if I do specify but you read the opposite interp, I still lose to theory regardless 44 - 45 -Only free speech can create political progress for minorities-gay rights proves 46 -Rauch 13 Jonathan Rauch, The Case for Hate Speech, The Atlantic, November 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524///LADI 47 -History shows that the more open the intellectual environment, the better minorities will do 48 -AND 49 -rule, that was enough. We had the coercive power of truth. 50 - 51 -Resistance to free speech is an attempt to divide movements and impede social progress. 52 -Halberstam 16 Jack Halberstam, You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma, Bully Bloggers, 5/7/16. //LADI 53 -What does it mean when younger people who are benefitting from several generations now of 54 -AND 55 -ekki-ekki-ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing, z’nourrwringmm.” 56 - 57 -(__) Relying on intuition or dominant cultural norms is insufficient and counter-productive. Only universal reason can ground activism, Drescher 6. 58 -Gary L. Drescher (Visiting Fellow at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, PhD in Computer Science from MIT). "Good and Real: Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics." Bradford Books. 5 May 2006. 59 -Still, to the extent that evolution has rigged us with a disposition toward empathy the doctrine that there is no real distinction between right and wrong. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 19:35:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ALL - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Mountain View Paranjpe Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF 1AC CPS reading at HW too - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPs
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,107 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC 2 - 3 -1AC-Framework 4 -Same aff as R1 w modified underview 5 -First, Ideal theory’s A) inevitable, which non-uniques disads and B) frames non-ideal judgments. Arvan ’14: 6 -Posted by Marcus Arvan on 05/03/2014 at 11:05 AM What's not wrong with ideal theory http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/05/whats-not-wrong-with-ideal-theory.html#sthash.rHY1Rv7v.dpuf 7 -This is fallacious. I entirely agree that it is important not to confuse the 8 -AND 9 -to do nonideal theory inevitably ~-~- if only tacitly ~-~- appeals to ideals. 10 - 11 -Second, Moral claims must be a priori—our perceptions are inherently suspect, since we can’t verify if our experiences are correct except through these experiences Kant: 12 -We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if When we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses as with sleep in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they objects cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us. since We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for its being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different. 13 - 14 -Thus, the meta-ethic is procedural moral realism. Korsgaard ONE clarifies: 15 -All cards are from Sources of Normativity by Korsgaard 16 -What distinguishes substantive from procedural realism is a view about the relationship between the answers 17 -AND 18 -facts that exist independently of those procedures, which those procedures track.35 19 - 20 -Prefer since substantive realism relies on an implausible epistemology. Korsgaard TWO: 21 -Substantive realism conceives 22 -I think it is not the point he meant to make. 23 - 24 -Takes out Cummiskey (equality), Nagel, Sinhababu, impact-justified, and oppression-only frameworks. They assume substantive moral realism by assuming the correct ethic happens to track the good. 25 - 26 -Here’s the procedure: it’s practical reason. Korsgaard THREE: 27 -The connection is also present in the concept 28 -of integrity. Etymologically, integrity is oneness, integration is what makes something one 29 -AND 30 -If reasons arise from reflective endorsement, then obligation arises from reflective rejection. 31 - 32 -Implications: 33 - 34 -A) No universality indicts – since you can bring any identity in question, reason must be universal when used well. Also this perms any K. I might’ve poorly used reason, but that just means a refined form of Kant is good, so it’s compatible with my aff. 35 - 36 -That implies intersubjectivity—Reasons must be public, explaining why we can understand the reasons others have, while still identifying primarily with our own. Thus reasons must be universal since they stem from humanity. Korsgaard FOUR: 37 -There are reasons for 38 -out of respect for the humanity of those who have them. 39 - 40 -Next, reason must be universalizable. 2+2=4 for me just as much as it does for you because there’ nothing exceptional about my will. Coercion is not universalizable because it’s a simultaneous extension and limitation of freedom. 41 - 42 -Independent warrants: 43 - 44 -1) The nature of laws implies the state must look to the united will. Ripstein Bracketed for clarity 45 -All people have the right to act for themselves. Kant argues that provision for the poor follows directly from the very idea of a united will. He remarks that the idea of a united lawgiving will requires that citizens regard the state as existing in perpetuity. By this he does not mean to impose an absurd requirement that people live forever,or even the weaker one that it must sustain an adequate population, or make sure that all of its members survive. The state does need to maintain its material preconditions, and as we saw in Chapter 7, this need generates its entitlement to “administer the state’s economy and finance.The state’s existence in perpetuity, however, is presented as a pure normative requirement, grounded in its ability to speak and act for everyone. That ability must be able to survive changes in the state’s membership. You are the same person you were a year ago because your normative principle of organization has stayed the same through changes in the matter making you up. As a being entitled to set and pursue your own purposes, you decide what your continuing body will do. That is why your deeds can be imputed to you even after every molecule in your body has changed, and even if you have forgotten what you did. The unity of your agency is created by the normative principle that makes your actions imputable to you. In the same way, the state must sustain its basic normative principle of organization through time, even as some members die or move away and new ones are born or move in. As we saw in Chapter 7, its unifying principle—“in terms of which alone we can think of the legitimacy of the state”—is the idea of the original contract, through which people are bound by laws they have given themselves through public institutions. The state must have the structure that is required in order for everyone to be bound by it, so that it can legitimately claim to speak and act for all across time. The requirement of unity across time is clear in the cases of legislation by officials: if the official’s decision were only binding while a particular human being held office, a citizen would be entitled to regard laws as void once the official’s term ended. Because each person is master of him- or herself, one person is only bound by the authority of another through the idea of a united will. sustains the legitimacy of So the idea of a united will presupposes some manner in which it exists through time. Past legislation, like past agreement, can only bind those who come after if the structure through which laws are made is one that can bind everyone it governs. 46 - 47 -2) Only rational willing contains unconditional value; facts about the world only have value relative to agents. Korsgaard FIVE: 48 -Christine Korsgaard, “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), 182.. 49 -In order for there to be objectively good ends, however, there must be 50 -AND 51 -by reason of their rational choices and so also as ends in themselves. 52 - 53 -Impacts: 54 - 55 -A) only universal reasons generates state obligation since that’s the only thing that everyone can access; pleasure constantly conflicts 56 - 57 -B) this means preserving freedom; the ability to set and pursue ends is shared by all citizens-else they couldn’t choose to be in the contract. 58 - 59 -Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom. 60 - 61 -1AC-Advocacy 62 - 63 -I defend the whole resolution-public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any Constitutionally protected speech. 64 - 65 -1AC-Contention 66 - 67 -Speech in its self does not constitute a wrong-thus prohibiting it is coercive. 68 -Varden 10 explains 69 - A Kantian Conception of Free Speech Helga Varden, former student of the OG Ripstein, In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer (2010) philpapers.org/rec/VARAKC-5 70 -This distinction between internal and external use of choice and freedom explains why Kant maintains 71 -AND 72 -cannot be seen as involving wrongdoing from the point of view of right. 73 - 74 -Prohibiting something or some activity that is not a wrong is itself a wrong. 75 -Ripstein 09 76 -Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009 77 -Each person’s entitlement to decide how his or her powers will be used precludes prohibiting 78 -AND 79 -you provide me with favorable background conditions to use my own powers.26 80 - 81 -1AC-Underview 82 -z’nourrwringmm.” 83 - 84 -1-if both sides have offense on theory, affirm 85 -2-(__) Affirming universal rights is the most effective means of challenging oppression , Ignatief. 86 -Michael Ignatief 1, Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, "The Attack on Human Rights", Foreign Affairs, November/December 87 - 88 -But at the same time, Western defenders of human rights have traded too much 89 -AND 90 -people, especially women, in theocratic, traditional, or patriarchal societies. 91 - 92 -3-1ar theory is drop the debater and no rvis 93 - 94 -4-Abstraction key to stopping racism whereas contrary logic encourages oppression. Wood : 95 -in the application of the theory, from every perversion or abuse through the influence 96 -AND 97 -itself is actually responsible for a lot of the evil that people do. 98 - 99 -5- Fairness is a voter 100 - 101 -A. 102 -B. 103 - 104 -C. Inclusivity: an unfair model of debate kills the incentive for people to debate in the first place. That link turns all their offense since there’s no incentive to do work, read and come to tournaments to learn anything. Speice and Lyle 105 - Speice, Patrick Wake Forest University, Lyle, Jim Debate Coach, Clarion University “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever” (2003) 106 -As with any game or sport, 107 -that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-16 00:30:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nigel Ward - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill SK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Mountain View Paranjpe Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC HW r6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 23:59:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immanuel Kant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Henry Giroux - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 15:26:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 00:58:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Michael Harris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -hw
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 19:34:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ALL - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPs
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 19:35:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ALL - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPs
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-16 00:08:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-16 00:09:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-16 00:30:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nigel Ward - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill SK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-02 19:44:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immanuel Kant - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Henry Giroux - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all