Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[49]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[58]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[49]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-29 04:17:22.573
	1	+2016-12-29 04:17:22.0

Caselist.CitesClass[58]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+For radical freedom there is no principle that can tell us what action we ought take but freedom of choosing a principle is a constraint. It is not what you chose but how you chose that is important and the form of choice must be absolutely free, that is to say that you see yourself as responsible for your choices. This means you have to see yourself as free to do anything. LITERALLY ANYTHING which puts them at a double bind-
	2	+analytic
	3	+
	4	+We know that the framework debate determines truth in round but even if you are ahead analytically, this should definitely be excluded in debate. YES, WE ARE CALLING YOU TO INTERVENE IN THIS ROUND. VOTE AGAINST THIS FUCKING FRAMEWORK. WE KNOW THE DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT QUALIFIES AS OPPRESSION CAN BE IMPORTANT AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS ALLOW US TO DETERMINE TRUTH BUT COM ON. IF YOU THINK KANT IS BAD THIS IS SO FUCKED UP THAT YOU SHOULD INTERVENE. THIS IS LITERALLY JUSTIFYING FUCKING RAPE AND MURDER. IF YOU HAVE SOME BASIC DECENCY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE DEBATE AND SET THE NORM THAT THIS IS BAD FOR DEBATE.
	5	+
	6	+And, here is some explicit evidence about the conclusion of radical freedom. It literally justifies everything. Radical freedom would conclude that we should construct our own conceptions of the good freely. We can pass judgment if in choosing we deceive ourselves from this total freedom. The only constraint on radical freedom is denying your own freedom to do whatever the fuck you want. SARTRE:
	7	+“Existentialism is a Humanism” by Jean-Paul Sartre 1945 DD
	8	+“The same applies to the moral plane. What art and morality have in common is creation and invention. We cannot decide a priori what ought to be done. I believe I made that clear enough when discussing the case of the student who came to see me: regardless of whatever ethical system he might attempt to follow, whether Kantian or any other, none would offer any guidance. He was obliged to invent his own laws. Certainly we cannot claim that this young man – who chose to remain with his mother, taking as his guiding moral principles his feelings, individual action, and concrete charity (or who could have chosen sacrifice by going to England) - made a gratuitous choice. Man makes himself; he does not come into the world fully made, he makes himself by choosing his own morality, and his circumstances are such that he has no option other than to choose a morality. We can define one man only in relation to their his commitments. It is therefore ludicrous to blame us for the gratuitousness of our choices. In the second place, people tell us: "You cannot judge others." In one sense this is true, in another not. It is true in the sense that whenever man chooses his commitment and his project in a totally sincere and lucid way, it is impossible for him to prefer another. It is also true in the sense that we do not believe in the idea of progress. Progress implies improvement, but man is always the same, confronting a situation that' is forever changing, while choice always remains a choice in any situation. The moral dilemma has not changed from the days of the American Civil War, when many were forced to choose between taking sides for or against slavery, to our own time, when one is faced with the choice between the Popular Republican Movement a Christian democratic party founded in 1944 and the Communists. Nevertheless we can pass judgment, for as I said, we choose in the presence of others, and we choose ourselves in the presence of others. First, we may judge (and this may be a logical rather than a value judgment) that certain choices are based on error and others on truth. We may also judge a man when we assert that he is acting in bad faith. If we define one man’s situation as one of free choice, in which he has no recourse to excuses or outside aid, then anyone man who takes refuge behind their his passions, any man who fabricates some deterministic theory, is operating in bad faith. One might object by saying: "But why shouldn't he choose bad faith?" My answer is that I do not pass moral judgment against him, but I call his bad faith an error. Here, we cannot avoid making a judgment of truth. Bad faith is obviously a lie because it is a dissimulation of man's full freedom of commitment. On the same grounds, I would say that I am also acting in bad faith if I declare that I am bound to uphold certain values, because it is a contradiction to embrace these values while at the same time affirming that I am bound by them. If someone were to ask me: "What if I want to be in bad faith?" I would reply, "There is no reason why you should not be, but I declare that you are, and that a strictly consistent attitude alone demonstrates good faith." What is more, I am able to bring a moral judgment to bear. When I affirm that freedom, under any concrete circumstance, can have no other aim than itself, and once a man realizes, in his state of abandonment, that it is I he who imposes values, he I can will but one thing: freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he I wills it in the abstract; it simply means that the ultimate significance of the actions of men of good faith is the quest of freedom in itself. A man who joins a communist or revolutionary group wills certain concrete aims that imply an abstract will to freedom, yet that freedom must always be exercised in a concrete manner. We will freedom for freedom's sake through our individual circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely on the freedom of others, and that the freedom of others depends on our own. Of course, freedom as the definition of man does not depend on others, but as soon as there is commitment, I am obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal. Consequently, when, operating the level of on complete authenticity, I have acknowledged that existence precedes essence, and that one man is a free being who, under any circumstances, can only ever will one’s his freedom, I have at the same time acknowledged that I must will the freedom of others. Therefore, in the name of this will to freedom, implied by freedom itself, I can pass judgment on those who seek to conceal from themselves the complete arbitrariness of their existence, and their total freedom. Those who conceal from themselves this total freedom, under the guise of solemnity, or by making determinist excuses, I will call cowards. Others, who try to prove their existence is necessary, when man's appearance on earth is merely contingent, I will call bastards. But whether cowards or bastards, they can be judged only on the grounds of strict authenticity. Thus, although the content of morality may vary, a certain form of that morality is universal. Kant states that freedom wills itself and the freedom of others. Agreed. But he believes that the formal and the universal are adequate to constitute morality. We, to the contrary, believe that principles that are too abstract fail to define action. Consider again the case of the student: in the name of what-what inviolable moral maxim-could he possibly have decided, with perfect peace of mind, whether he should abandon or remain with his mother? There is no way of judging. The content is always specific; inventiveness is always part of the process. The only thing that counts is whether or not invention is made in the name of freedom.” (46-50)
	9	+
	10	+Additionally, Gut check that oppression is bad. Anything else only makes the debate space unsafe – that outweighs – it’s an out of round impact. Teehan 14:
	11	+ (Ryan Teehan, NSD staff and debater, NSD comment on TOC protests, 2014)
	12	+“Honestly, I don't think that 99 of what has been said in this thread so far actually matters. It doesn't matter whether you think that these types of assumptions should be questioned. It doesn't matter what accepting this intuition could potentially do or not do. It doesn't matter if you see fit to make, incredibly trivializing and misplaced I might add, links between this and the Holocaust. All of the arguments that talk about how debate is a unique space for questioning assumptions make an assumeption of safety. They say that this is a space where one is safe to question assumptions and try new perspectives. That is not true for everyone. When we allow arguments that questioning the wrongness of racism, sexism, homophobia, rape, lynching, etc., we make debate unsafe for certain people. The idea that debate is a safe space to question all assumptions is the definition of privilege, it begins with an idea of a debater that can question every assumption. People who face the actual effects of the aforementioned things cannot question those assumptions, and making debate a space built around the idea that they can is hostile. So, you really have a choice. Either 1) say that you do not want these people to debate so that you can let people question the wrongness of everything I listed before, 2) say that you care more about letting debaters question those things than making debate safe for everyone, or 3) make it so that saying things that make debate unsafe has actual repercussions. On "debate is not the real world". Only for people who can separate their existence in "the real world" from their existence in debate. That means privileged, white, heterosexual males like myself. I don't understand how you can make this sweeping claim when some people are clearly harmed by these arguments. At the end of the day, you have to figure out whether you care about debate being safe for everyone involved. I don't think anyone has contested that these arguments make debate unsafe for certain people. If you care at all about the people involved in debate then don't vote on these arguments. If you care about the safety and wellbeing of competitors, then don't vote on these arguments. If you don't, then I honestly don't understand why you give up your time to coach and/or judge. The pay can't be that good. I don't believe that you're just in it for the money, which is why I ask you to ask yourselves whether you can justify making debate unsafe for certain people.”
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+Education is always a sight of politics because it functions to indoctrinate us into a form of reasoning but it can never be neutral, you either oppress or resist, because not resisting oppressive structures only re-entrenches oppression by allowing them to normalize what they do. THERE IS NO OPTING OUT OF THIS DEBATE. VOTING AFFIRMING VOTES FOR MURDER AND RAPE. Shaull,
	16	+(Paulo Friere, Foreword by Richard Shaull. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Foreword.”)
	17	+“When an illiterate peasant participates in this sort of educational experience, he or she they comes to a new awareness of self, has a new sense of dignity, and is stirred by a new hope. Time and again, peasants have expressed these discoveries in striking ways after a few hours of class: "I now realize I am a person, an educated person." "We were blind, now our eyes have been opened." "Before this, words meant nothing to me; now they speak to me and I can make them speak." "Now we will no longer be a dead weight on the cooperative farm." When this happens in the process of learning to read, men and women they discover that they are creators of culture, and that all their work can be creative. "I work, and working I transform the world." And as those who have been completely marginalized are so radically transformed, they are no longer willing to be mere objects, responding to changes occurring around them; they are more likely to decide to take upon themselves the struggle to change the structures of society, which until now have served to oppress them. For this reason, a distinguished Brazilian student of national development recently affirmed that this type of educational work among the people represents a new factor in social change and development, "a new instrument of conduct for the Third World, by which it can overcome traditional structures and enter the modern world." At first sight, Paulo Freire's method of teaching illiterates in Latin America seems to belong to a different world from that in which we find ourselves in this country. Certainly, it would be absurd to claim that it should be copied here. But there are certain parallels in the two situations that should not be overlooked. Our advanced technological society is rapidly making objects of most of us and subtly programming us into conformity to the logic of its system. To the degree that this happens, we are also becoming submerged in a new "culture of silence." The paradox is that the same technology that does this to us also creates a new sensitivity to what is happening. Especially among young people, the new media together with the erosion of old concepts of authority open the way to acute awareness of this new bondage. The young perceive that their right to say their own word has been stolen from them, and that few things are more important than the struggle to win it back. And they also realize that the educational system today—from kindergarten to university—is their enemy. ¶ but There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education It either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes "the practice of freedom," the means by which men and women to deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. The development of an educational methodology that facilitates this process will inevitably lead to tension and conflict within our society. But it could also contribute to the formation of a new man and mark the beginning of a new era in Western history. For those who are committed to that task and are searching for concepts and tools for experimentation, Paulo Freires thought will make a significant contribution in the years ahead.” (33-34)
	18	+
	19	+On Poole- They say morality must appeal to our individual experiences to confer value on the experience but no
	20	+analytic

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-29 04:17:25.693

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Alberto Thome and Johnathan Wei

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lake Highland MK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+49

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1- Existentialism K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Round Robin