Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[65]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[65]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-18 04:59:59.926
	1	+2017-03-18 04:59:59.0

Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
	1	+Part One—Truth Testing: The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best meets their burden under a truth testing paradigm. This requires the AFF to prove the resolution true and the NEG to prove the resolution false. To clarify, the judge cannot vote on education or fairness impacts under my role of the ballot, only the truth or falsity of the resolution. Three warrants:
	2	+1. Standards of goodness for any activity, like debate, inevitably collapse to following the intrinsic form of the activity. The particular ends of the activity are inseparable from the rules that govern it. This alone explains the possibility of binding standards.
	3	+BOYLE and LAVIN:
	4	+Boyle, Matthew and Douglas Lavin. 2010. Goodness and desire. In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, ed. Sergio Tenenbaum. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 32-33.
	5	+“A certain standard of goodness for a thing follows inevitably from its belonging to a kind characterized by a functionally-organized system of powers: this, we suppose, is the crux of Aristotle’s famous “function argument.” If the objection to this is that it illegitimately infers an “ought” from an “is,” we are not sure that we understand the charge. The sort of “saying what a thing is” that is at issue here is: ascribesing to it a certain form, where a form is something that as such involves directedness toward certain ends. If the question is supposed to be why the thing at issue ought to pursue those ends, we ask: from what standpoint is this question posed? If the thing in question genuinely is a bearer of such-and-such a form, then it is a pursuer of such-and-such ends, and essentially so. It can no more renounce these ends than it can cease to be itself. But if the objection is that there can be no such thing as a “form” in the sense that would validate these claims, then we would want to dispute this, though to confront the various challenges to this notion would be too large a task to take on here. We hope the foregoing discussion suggests, at any rate, that the costs of giving up this notion would be significant. For it suggests that the notion belongs, not simply to some strange pre- modern metaphysical outlook, but to a characterization of the underlying structure of forms of thought and speech that we all constantly employ, and whose soundness few philosophers seriously question. If the Aristotelian standpoint on goal-directed activity is right, then to regard something as a goal-directed agent is necessarily to regard it as the bearer of a certain form, and thus as directed toward a certain system of goods, goods the pursuit of which orients, more or less remotely, its various particular doings.”
	6	+Constitutivism implies truth testing:
	7	+A. To affirm is defined as: “to say that something is true in a confident way” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirm and to negate is defined as: “to deny the existence or truth of” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate So, the binding standards ascribed in the actions of affirming and negating assume a truth testing model.
	8	+B. Analytic
	9	+Outweighs:
	10	+a)
	11	+b)
	12	+c)
	13	+d)
	14	+Underview- truth testing means you should not evaluate theory
	15	+a)
	16	+b)
	17	+2. Analytic
	18	+a)
	19	+b)
	20	+3. Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing—any property assumes the truth of the property. FREGE:
	21	+Frege ’03. Frege, Gottlob. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” in Logicism and the Philosophy of Language: Selections from Frege and Russell. Broadview Press. March 2003. Pg. 204.
	22	+“It may nevertheless be thought that we cannot recognize a property of a thing without at the same time realizing the thought that this thing has this property to be true. So with every property of a thing is joined a property of a thought, namely, that of truth. It is also worthy of notice that the sentence “I smell the scent of violets” has just the same content as the sentence “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. And yet is it not a great result when the scientist after much hesitation and careful inquiry, can finally say “ what I supposed is true ” The meaning of the word “ true ” seems to be altogether unique. May we not be dealing here with something which cannot, in the ordinary sense, be called a quality at all? In spite of this doubt I want first to express myself in accordance with ordinary usage, as if truth were a quality, until something more to the point is found.”
	23	+Part Two—Burden: The sufficient affirmative burden is to prove that there is no morally relevant distinction between police officers and normal citizens that justifies a distinction in punishment. The negative must defend an advocacy that is competitive with the AFF’s burden in order to prove the resolution false under the AFF’s interp of the resolution.
	24	+Prefer the AFF’s interp of the resolution: The binding feature of the U.S. Criminal Justice System is that citizens should be held accountable for their actions and that wrongdoing should be punished in some form. DUFF: Antony Duff ‘13, Theories of Criminal Law, SEP 2013
	25	+“Civil wrongs are typically treated as ‘private’ matters in the sense that it is for the victim to investigate what happened, to identify the alleged wrongdoer, and to bring a case against him. The law provides the institutions (the courts, arbitration panels) through which that case can be brought; it lays down the norms by reference to which the case is decided; it specifies what remedies are available; it might also help successful plaintiffs to extract damages from unwilling defendants. But it is for the injured party to bring, or to decide not to bring, a case; to pursue, or to abandon, that case; to insist on extracting the damages the court awarded, or to forgo them. The case is described and understood as ‘P v D’: P sues D, and the case thus belongs to her. The criminal law, however, provides for the public investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes: for a police force, tasked with investigating (as well as preventing) crime and detecting criminals; for a system of criminal courts, in which defendants are tried for the crimes that they are alleged to have committed (and whose workings are structured by a complex array of procedural rules and requirements); for a system of punishments that will be imposed by the courts, and administered by other institutions and officials. Now the police act in the name and with the authority not just of the victim, but of the whole polity; it is for the prosecuting authority, not for the victim, to decide whether, and on what charge, anyone will be prosecuted. If the victim does not want the case to go to court, the prosecutors will in fact often not proceed with it—because it would be hard to do so without the victim's willing co-operation, or out of concern for the victim's feelings; but cases can be prosecuted despite the victim's unwillingness (this can be an important issue for prosecutors dealing with domestic violence; see Dempsey 2009). When the case comes to court, it is described not as ‘P v D’, but as ‘State v D’, or ‘People v D’, or ‘Queen v D’: D is prosecuted not by an individual victim, but by the polity—or, in societies that have not yet shaken off the trappings of undemocratic monarchy, by its sovereign. (Some legal systems allow the possibility of private prosecutions; this is one of several ways in which the distinction between criminal and civil law is neither sharp nor watertight.)”
	26	+Analytic:
	27	+1. analytic
	28	+a)
	29	+b)
	30	+2. analytic
	31	+Part Three—Offense: The affirmatives advocacy is that there is no morally relevant distinction between police officers and regular agents.
	32	+1. The nature of conflict entails starting from the assumption of equality. It is on the burden of the contestant to prove that certain individuals should fall outside of our categories. MANSBRIDGE:
	33	+“Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political” edited by Seyla Benhabib – “Using Power/Fighting Power: The Polity” by Jane Mansbridge DD
	34	+“First, when conflicting interests erode the bases for any others standards other than equality, equality becomes the only mutually acceptable default position. This essentially negative argument, which Isaiah Berlin makes in general terms, is particularly applicable to majority rule. Berlin points out that all norms of rules (without which there can be no society) have a structure such that within the categories created by the rule all individuals are treated equally. This is the meaning of a rule. Members of any society, asked to justify a rule, give reasons for including or excluding individuals from the relevant categories. When no good reason for a distinction can be given, the default presumption is that individuals will be treated equally. Following this logic, struggles over the franchise have taken the form of struggles over reasons for exclusion. Whenever the underlying rationale for traditional exclusions erodes, more previously excluded individual gain the vote.” (53)
	35	+2. Analytic
	36	+3. Analytic
	37	+4. Legal distinctions cannot generate moral distinctions in the form of the agent. SHAPIRO:
	38	+Shapiro, Scott J. B.A., Columbia, 1987; J.D., Yale, 1990; Ph.D., Columbia, 1996. Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale Law School, Former Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan and Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Authority (2000). Stanford/Yale Jr. Faculty Forum Research Paper 00-05; Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 24. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=233830 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.233830
	39	+"It is sometimes thought that Wolff’s challenge to authority is merely a special case of a more general paradox, one that purports to show the incompatibility of authority and rationality. The general argument is familiar: Consider any directive issued by an authority and any action required by that directive. Either the balance of reasons supports that action or it does not. If the balance of reasons supports the action, an agent should conform to the directive, but not because conformity is required by the directive, rather because agents should always act according to the balance of reasons. On the other hand, if the balance of reasons does not support the action, then an agent should not conform to the directive because agents should never act against the balance of reasons. It would seem, therefore, that authoritative directives can never be reasons for action – if a directive gave the right result, the directive would be irrelevant; if the directive gave the wrong result, then the obedience to the directive would be unreasonable. Since authoritative directives can never be reasons for action, it follows that rational agents can never obey authority. The proof: Rational agents always aim to act on undefeated reasons and act in accordance with that aim. If an agent were to obey an authority, they would either have to believe that they had an undefeated reason to obey or believed that they didn’t have an undefeated reason but would have obeyed anyway. If the former were true, then the agent would have irrational beliefs, given that according to the first argument, authoritative directives can never be reasons for action. If the latter were true, then the agent would not be acting in accordance with the aim of acting on undefeated reasons.”
	40	+5. Moral distinctions between agents subconsciously normalize oppression. TAMDGIDI:
	41	+Mohammad H. Tamdgidi, Prof. @ U. Mass-Boston, “I Change Myself, I Change the World”: Gloria Anzaldua’s Sociological Imagination in Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza”, Humanity and Society, 2008, p. JSTOR
	42	+“The thesis of global social change via radical self-knowledge and transformation is neither an anecdotal nor a passing episode in Anzaldua's work. It is a continuing and central hypothesis that significantly inspired Borderlands and her later writings and informed much of her literary laboratory and social praxis. She reminded her readers emphatically of this thesis in Borderlands: My "awakened dreams" are about shifts. Thought shifts, reality shifts, gender shifts: one person metamorphoses into another in a world where people fly through the air, heal from mortal wounds. I am playing with my Self, I am playing with the world's soul, I am the dialogue between my Self and el espiritu del mundo. I change myself, I change the world (1987, p.71). She further wrote: The struggle is inner: Chicano, indio, American Indian, mojado, mexicano, immigrant Latino, Anglo in power, working class Anglo, Black, Asian-our psyches resemble the bordertowns and are populated by the same people. The struggle has always been inner, and is played out in the outer terrains. Awareness of our situation must come before inner changes, which in turn come before changes in society. Nothing happens in the "real" world unless it first happens in the images in our heads (1987, p.87). To comprehend the paradoxical nature of this simultaneous "work" on self and global transformation, it is crucial to understand the paradigmatic significance Anzaldua attributes to the problem of dualism and the root source of much of what's wrong in human life. All major concepts in Anzaldua's thought, such as "borderlands," "bridging," "nepantilism" ("an Aztec word meaning torn between ways" 1978, p.7 8), "nepantleras" (those who can travel across different spiritual worlds),2 etc., are invented, borrowed, or revived to make possible the transcendence of dualistic modes of living, thinking, feeling and sensing that permeate the deepest recesses of human self and global realities. The tragedies of human violence, war, exploitation, oppression, and alienation, are, at their roots, products of the violence of dualism. In other words, for Anzaldua, the "end game" for the project of human transformation-for which self or global dimensions are not separated as entities in which one is a "means" to the other's "end," but are the same and simultaneous-is to eliminate the dualistic thinking that underlies all modes of racial, sexist, classist, homophobic, individualistic, xenophobic, orientalist, imperial/colonial, and other ideological modes of human alienation and oppression. 4 Anzaldua's critique of dualism is not a denial of the dialectical mode of development of phenomena in nature, society and mind. A fundamental problem for her is binaries become habitually rigidified, dogmatized and rendered static to the point where they become unbridgeable and create lasting personal and broader social wounds. Healing involves a process of observation, questioning, and dialectical reengagement and "bridging" of rigidified binaries. In Anzaldua's view (and this is crucial), what makes dualisms so difficult to heal and transform-leading to is their becoming rigidified as habituated modes of thinking and behavior in the inner and global realms-is itself a product of the dualistic separation of conscious and subconscious minds. It is this splitting of waking consciousness from the subconscious mind, and the reification of the split as if given in nature (and not brought on and perpetuated by specific social upbringing and modes of education), that helps reproduce and further entrench other modes of dualistic thinking, feeling, sensing, behaving and relating.5 This ensemble of the immense variety of habituated dualisms subtly permeating human inner and global life is "the enemy within" that must be the target of the simultaneous work on the self and the world: The borders and walls that are supposed to keep the undesirable ideas out are entrenched habits and patterns of behavior; these habits and patterns are the enemy within. Rigidity means death. Only by remaining flexible is she able to stretch the psyche horizontally and vertically. La mestiza constantly has to shift out of habitual formations; from convergent thinking, analytical reasoning that tends to use rationality to move toward a single goal (a Western mode), to divergent thinking, characterized by movements away from set patterns and goals and toward a more whole perspective, one that includes rather than excludes...The work of mestiza consciousness is to break down the subject-object duality that keeps her a prisoner and to shows in the flesh and through the images in her work how duality is transcended. The answer to the problem between the white race and the colored, between males and females, lies in healing the split that originates in the very foundation of our lives, our culture, our languages, our thoughts. A massive uprooting of dualistic thinking in the individual and collective consciousness is the beginning of a long struggle, but one that could, in our best hopes, bring us to the end of rape, of violence, of war (Anzaldua 1987, pp. 79- 80). The massive, subtle and complex, work of self and global transformation to end rape, violence6 and war, is effectively conceptualized by Anzaldua in terms of a massive project of uprooting habituated dualisms and planting healing seeds of integrative human experience. This is both the beginning and the end games of the human liberation project for her. Playing it does not have to be postponed to an indefinite future, but can and should begin in the here-and-now, inward out. It signifies the mixture of her utopian, mystical and scientific projects at work in understanding and transcending/healing the root of human alienation and violence. To recognize and change the manifestations of diverse forms of dualism as permeating the most private recesses of oneself is at the same time an exercise in radical understanding and changing of the world. For this reason, in Anzaldua, one finds a paradoxical sense that "size" both matters and does not matter. It matters because breaking down the dualism of small and large should be also a subject of conscious rethinking to appreciate how broader world-historical social transformation can (and may most effectively) arise from small changes in the here-and-nows within. It matters not, because one then realizes that one does not need to postpone or leap over small changes to bring about broader social change. Radical transformation of an inner habit, as minute as an attitude, feeling, or bias, may potentially have significant butterfly effects and repercussions for larger, global, social processes. How Anzaldua's own "work" on herself-as a nepantlera and spiritual traveler across diverse borderlandshas shaped and influenced a generation of intellectuals and activists is an illustrative case in point. Living as a Chicana Lesbian and Feminist in the borderlands of dualistic social experiences provides Anzaldua with an opportunity to demonstrate to her public audience and readers how the immense work can begin through chronicling her own efforts in writing and working on herself. This, in my view, provides the key to understanding the transformative nature of Anzaldua's writings in general and in her Borderlands in particular.”
	43	+
	44	+Part Four—Underview:
	45	+On a theoretical level, this burden is best:
	46	+1. The aff is key to reciprocity-
	47	+ 2. Phil ed- Debating about principles of equality is the basis of all ethical systems and assumptions. Gosepath 11 Gosepath, Stefan, "Equality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/equality/.This fundamental idea of equal respect for all persons and of the equal worth or equal dignity of all human beings (Vlastos 1962) is accepted as a minimal standard by all leading schools of modern Western political and moral culture. Any political theory abandoning this notion of equality will not be found plausible today. In a period in which metaphysical, religious and traditional views have lost their general plausibility (Habermas 1983, p. 53, 1992, pp. 39-44), it appears impossible to peacefully reach a general agreement on common political aims without accepting that persons must be treated as equals. As a result, moral equality constitutes the ‘egalitarian plateau’ for all contemporary political theories (Kymlicka 1990, p.5).
	48	+Finally, the use of educational spaces as sites of empowerment place the judge into the role of the authoritarian adjudicator who molds students in accordance to a particular political end. This kills any conception of critical citizenship and advocacy skills. RICKERT:
	49	+Rickert, Thomas. ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World." JacOnline Journal
	50	+“An example of the connection between violence and pedagogy is implicit in the notion of being "schooled" as it has been conceptualized by Giroux and Peter Mclaren. They explain, "Fundamental to the principles that inform critical pedagogy is the conviction that schooling for self- and social empowerment is ethically prior to questions of epistemology or to a mastery of technical or social skills that are primarily tied to the logic of the marketplace" (153-54). A presumption here is that it is the teacher who knows (best), and this orientation gives the concept of schooling a particular bite: though it presents itself as oppositional to the state and the dominant forms of pedagogy that serve the state and its capitalist interests, it nevertheless reinscribes an authoritarian model that is congruent with any number of oedipalizing pedagogies that "school" the student in proper behavior. As Diane Davis notes, radical, feminist, and liberatory pedagogies "often camouflage pedagogical violence in their move from one mode of 'normalization' to another" and "function within a disciplinary matrix of power, a covert carceral system, that aims to create useful subjects for particular political agendas" (212). Such oedipalizing pedagogies are less effective in practice than what the claims for them assert; indeed, the attempt to "school" students in the manner called for by Giroux and McLaren is complicitous with the malaise of postmodern cynicism. Students will dutifully go through their liberatory motions, producing the proper assignments, but it remains an open question whether they carry an oppositional politics with them. The "critical distance" supposedly created with liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class.” (299-300)

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-18 05:00:01.954

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Drew Burd

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cy-Woods CJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+65

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - 1AC - Distinction

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT