| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,37 @@ |
|
1 |
+Part 1 is the Burden |
|
2 |
+The neg burden is to prove that there is be a morally relevant distinction between police officers and other individuals while the aff burden that this is not the case. Prefer the burden: |
|
3 |
+1. Analytic |
|
4 |
+2. Phil Ed: UNC UNC University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "Why Major in Philosophy?," Name of website. Website Editor(s). Date of electronic publication. Date of access. http://philosophy.unc.edu/undergraduate-program/why-major-in-philosophy. |
|
5 |
+Having …you might encounter. |
|
6 |
+3. Legal Context: Blum 08 (Karen Blum, Suffolk University, “Section 1983: Qualified Immunity”, December 2008) |
|
7 |
+In both the …interaction with Jones.”) |
|
8 |
+4. Critical Education: Steering (Jerry Steering, Steering Law, “Why the Police Get Away with Violating Your Rights”) |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+The police “oppress” …police misconduct cases.) |
|
11 |
+5. Analytic |
|
12 |
+Analytic |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+Part 2 is Offense |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+I’ll defend implementation if asked in CX and make any other specifications they want in order to meet their theory interps. Implementation and further specification are irrelevant under the burden but I am still willing to defend them. |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+ First, morally relevant distinctions can only be based on a priori reasoning. |
|
19 |
+A. Normativity flow from reasoning via a priori categories; natural facts only show what is. Kant: |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+We have therefore …every human being. |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+B. Analytic |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+C. Analytic |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+D. Analytic |
|
28 |
+There is no a priori distinction between police officers and other individuals: |
|
29 |
+A. Analytic |
|
30 |
+B. Analytic |
|
31 |
+ |
|
32 |
+Second, even if empirical distinctions are morally relevant, you still affirm: |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+A. We can never prove an empirical distinction between individuals because no amount of subjective evidence can ever prove objective knowledge of the external world. Searle Searle, John R. Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books; 2000. (27). |
|
35 |
+You could have …of these scenarios. |
|
36 |
+B. Even if there is an objective external world, all objects are one and the same within it which means that there is no distinction between any people. Schaffer Schaffer, Jonathan, "Monism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/monism/. |
|
37 |
+To my knowledge …premises seem plausible.19 |