Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[4]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[4]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-12 19:59:48.731
	1	+2016-09-12 19:59:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,149 @@
	1	+===1NC===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Morality must be agent-neutral to explain the universality of moral claims—but moral clsims must appeal to subjective features of moral agents to explain their normativity====
	5	+**Lerm 1 summarizes**
	6	+~~Lerm, Jessica. "Second-personal reasons: why we need something like them, but why there are actually no such things," South African Journal of Philosophy31.2 (2012): 328-339.~~ Note: the author disagrees with the conclusion of the NC.
	7	+Agent-neutral reasons are to be distinguished from agent-relative reasons,2
	8	+AND
	9	+possible solutions to the puzzle: Hobbes', and the neo-Kantians'.
	10	+
	11	+
	12	+====Impacts:====
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====A). takes out agent-neutral theories like util—they assume some moral good to be maximized, but the good only exists for a particular agent ====
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====B). authority and universality are a side constraint to any ethical theory—or else they can't generate normative obligations for state action since states won't follow them ====
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====That implies that the giving up of absolute authority to the state—only Hobbesian contract theory generates normative universal reasons for state action====
	22	+**Lerm 2 summarizes**
	23	+~~Lerm, Jessica. "Second-personal reasons: why we need something like them, but why there are actually no such things," South African Journal of Philosophy31.2 (2012): 328-339.~~ Note: the author disagrees with the conclusion of the NC.
	24	+The Hobbesian proposal Thomas Hobbes offers a solution to this puzzle of moral reasons.
	25	+AND
	26	+reasons the "basic recipe" to account for both features of morality.
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+====Impacts:====
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====A). precedes the aff framework—absolute sovereignty is a side constraint since state-based theories presume the existence of sovereignty of the state to do anything to begin with====
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====B). a prerequisite to any moral action—no morality exists in the state of nature since we're all bound by carnal desires until the Sovereign can come along to unify subjective viewpoints and speak collectively for all of us====
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====C). no matter how good the aff is, it's infinitely worse than the state of nature since there's nothing to enforce contracts or correct any injustices people have towards one another—justifies infinite racism and oppression====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====D). prohibitions on actions by the sovereign are a logical impossibility since the sovereign by definition have absolute authority on any action====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the Sovereign.====
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Additional reasons to prefer:====
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====A). Actor and topic specificity—Dictionary.com defines ought as obligation or duty, so the resolution appeals to unique moral positions of the state, which are distinct from individuals ====
	51	+~~Dictionary.com, "ought," first definition. Random House, 2015~~
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====B). Countries are states, which are defined by their sovereignty====
	55	+**Grimsley no date**
	56	+~~a recovering lawyer who now happily fills his days writing, teaching and spending time with his wife, kids, and dog. He resides in Rochester, Minnesota, where he is finishing the second book in the Prometheus Saga among other writing projects; "The Difference Between Countries, Nations, States, and Governments," Study.com, Shawn Grimsley~~
	57	+If you've ever looked at globes and maps, you've probably seen quite a few
	58	+AND
	59	+as either a 'country' or a 'State.' People use the terms interchangeably
	60	+
	61	+
	62	+====Offense—====
	63	+
	64	+
	65	+====1). Prohibition on nuclear power unilaterally restricts the Sovereign's ability to enact certain energy policies, but the Sovereign must maintain absolute authority—nuclear power is inevitably part of government policies====
	66	+**NEA 04**
	67	+~~Nuclear Energy Agency, "Nuclear energy: the role of government," 2004 Vol 22 Num 1~~
	68	+Governments have been deeply involved in the development of nuclear energy. Some of them
	69	+AND
	70	+action and nuclear energy was a highly visible symbol of their successful application.
	71	+
	72	+
	73	+====2). Nuclear energy consolidates state power: A). it increases government control over energy policy and the economy—nuclear power plants are huge endeavors requiring immense amount of government subsidies and capital investments instead of small-scale enterprises B). keeping "all of above" options available increases government independence by increasing flexibility—even if nuclear power isn't currently needed, keeping the possibility open ensures governments can move away from dependence on foreign fossil fuels in the future when conflict breaks out====
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+===AC===
	77	+
	78	+
	79	+====Permissibility negates:====
	80	+
	81	+
	82	+====1) Ought implies a moral obligation according to the AC. Obligations are disproven when the action is permissible or prohibited since it can't also be obligatory. So, permissibility is sufficient condition to negate.====
	83	+
	84	+
	85	+====2) The converse of an "ought' statement isn't an ought not statement, but rather a middle ground of lack of an obligation. Conflicting moral obligations, like "we ought to" do some action and "we ought not to" do that same action, cannot both be true by definition. However, they can both be false, so permissibility is neg ground.====
	86	+
	87	+
	88	+====3). We don't presume things are morally permissible until we know they don't cause harm—if you say "I want to kill a baby tomorrow," I don't just presume that to be permissible. In the case of forced-case scenarios, we instead want to suspend judgment because our choice is irreversible if we presume wrong.====
	89	+
	90	+
	91	+====Presumption negates:====
	92	+
	93	+
	94	+====1). Affirming is positive action while negating is doing nothing—doing something has a risk of making things worse====
	95	+
	96	+
	97	+====2). Every positive statement carries infinite assumptions as its basis. For a conclusion to be true, all premises must follow; since it's more likely that one assumption can be refuted than for all premises to be true, we ought to reject the statement.====
	98	+
	99	+
	100	+====Prefer substantive reasons to presume—there's still offense left====
	101	+
	102	+
	103	+===Off===
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+====Interpretation—if the neg has previously request that the neg not run God framework at another tournament, the aff must ask the competitiors before running theistic argumens====
	107	+
	108	+
	109	+====ONE Judge impartiality: Religious arguments are uniquely abusive since literally every judge will have a bias one way or the other, as they all have some view on religion. Judges are less likely to vote on arguments that conflict with their important personal beliefs, so one side always has a bias. ====
	110	+
	111	+
	112	+====Empirics prove – arguments appealing to religion trade off with rational evaluation of arguments. This effect is so widespread that some courts have even banned religious appeals====
	113	+**Miller and Bornstein 6** (Monica Miller University of Nevada, Reno; Brian H. Bornstein, University of Nebraska-Lincoln)"The Use of Religion in Death Penalty Sentencing Trials" University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology
	114	+Attorneys who use religious appeals and testimony believe they will be influential, and much
	115	+AND
	116	+appeal and the strength of the evidence more aggravators vs. more mitigators).
	117	+
	118	+
	119	+====TWO you force debaters who believe in God to contradict their most deeply held beliefs. ====
	120	+
	121	+
	122	+====THREE turn ground-what the Bible says is unturnable. ====
	123	+
	124	+
	125	+===Off===
	126	+
	127	+
	128	+====Biblical Christianity justifies racism and slavery ====
	129	+**Giberson, Religion PHD, 15**
	130	+Karl Giberson, Ph.D, Professor of Science and Religion, Stonehill College 6-24-2015, "The Biblical Roots of Racism," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/the-biblical-roots-of-racism_b_7649390.html
	131	+The tragic shooting in South Carolina offers another painful reminder of American Christianity's troubled relationship
	132	+AND
	133	+will be struggling with its mixed messages about the meaning of the races.
	134	+
	135	+
	136	+====This is an independent voting issue-racism must be rejected in every cases====
	137	+**Memmi 2k** (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ University Of Paris; RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, pp.163)
	138	+
	139	+The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without
	140	+AND
	141	+. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
	142	+
	143	+
	144	+====You cannot separate the debaters from the discourse-this is an independent voting issue ====
	145	+**Vincent 13**
	146	+Chris Vincent, Re-Conceptualizing our Performances: Accountability in Lincoln Douglas Debate, Vbriefly, 2013. NS
	147	+The question then becomes how does our discourse justify what we believe? For many
	148	+AND
	149	+color, and in turn destroy the transformative potential this community could have.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-12 19:59:49.677

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Panel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Servite PA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Doubles

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mountain View Zhang Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+K ~-~- God

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola