Logan Carter Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | 1 | - | - |
|
|
| |
| All | 1 | - | - |
|
|
| |
| Alta | Doubles | - | - |
|
| ||
| Alta | 1 | Corner Canyon TB | Ashan Peiris |
|
|
| |
| UNLV | 3 | Carmel Valley CC | Kris Kaya |
|
|
| |
| Young Lawyers | Octas | Hunter AD | Panel |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| - | 1 | Opponent: - | Judge: - Pre-Tournament Disclosure |
| All | 1 | Opponent: - | Judge: - Contact Info |
| Alta | 1 | Opponent: Corner Canyon TB | Judge: Ashan Peiris 1AC - Structural Violence |
| UNLV | 3 | Opponent: Carmel Valley CC | Judge: Kris Kaya 1AC - Boring AC |
| Young Lawyers | Octas | Opponent: Hunter AD | Judge: Panel 1AC - Cold Fusion Plan |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: - | Judge: - Anything on my CX wiki is fair game. Please let me know about any accommodations I need to make (i.e. speed requirements, preferred pronouns, trigger warnings, etc.) prior to the round. (Absent any notification, I will use they/them to refer to you, and provide trigger warnings to the best of my ability). | 1/22/17 |
1AR - Ableism KTournament: Young Lawyers | Round: Octas | Opponent: Hunter AD | Judge: Panel Even if we do not realize it, ableist language is derogatory, excludes those with disabilities, and perpetuates otherization. Continued ableist assumptions in the academic space destroy education The alternative is to recognize and challenge ableist assumptions in the educational space of debate by rejecting our opponents. And, the K comes first and is a drop-the-team issue because:
2. Debaters need to be held accountable for their discourse – discursive irresponsibility creates exclusion. Vincent 13 Vincent 13 – (Christopher Debate Coach, former college NDT debater “Re-Conceptualizing Our Performances: Accountability In Lincoln Douglas Debate 3. Punitive damages. There needs to be a definite incentive to change ableist language, if there is no punishment no change will come. | 1/23/17 |
JanFeb 1AC -- Boring VersionTournament: UNLV | Round: 3 | Opponent: Carmel Valley CC | Judge: Kris Kaya Observation 1 - FramingThe standard is utilitarianism. Prefer because:1. The resolutional question is based on weighing rights – this necessitates util.Brandt, professor of philosophy @ U Mich. 1992 2. Policy-making is based on an obligation to citizens’ interests that necessitates evaluating impacts.Woller Gary, Economics Professor at BYU, “Policy Currents,” June, http://apsapolicysection.org/vol7_2/72.pdf 3. Failure to evaluate impacts creates tunnel vision that generates evil and political irrelevance.Isaac, PhD.Yale, Prof. PoliSci Indiana-Bloomington, dir. Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, 02 Prioritize the smallest risk of extinction—the value of the lives saved is massive and outweighs. Solving extinction is thus a pre-req to the Neg’s framework.Contention 1 – Status QuoCollege speech regulations on the rise and it’s a slippery slope – threatens journalism, academic freedom, and student expression. Plan key to checking widespread censorship.Sanders, Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017. WC *Edited for ableist languagePost-Hazelwood censorship ... in its wake. We’re at the breaking point – censorship risks normalizing it in the real world.Schuman 12-8 (Rebecca, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html) It’s all or nothing – regulations inevitably spread and threaten freedoms in the real world – history proves.Sanders 2 (Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017.) WC *Brackets for clarity.Because Hazelwood, intentionally ... an earlier time. This is a disad to all PIC’s – minor restrictions inevitably spread.PlanIn the United States, public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.Advantage 1 – JournalismCollege is a training ground for journalists – plan key to a responsible media.Sanders 3 (Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017.) WC Irresponsible media is the internal link to a host of impacts – Trump rise proves.Boyle, Ev. USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy, 2016, communicationleadership.usc.edu/news/ yes-the-media-bears-some-responsibility-for-the-rise-of-donald-trumpE2808A-E2 808Aheres-proof/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Ev Boyle is the Associate Director of CCLP and the founding director of Civic Tech USC. WC "Yes, the media bears some responsibility for the rise of Donald Trump—here’s proof." Trump is the tip of the iceberg – free, effective media key to checking the rise of even more dangerous demagogues.Chotiner, Isaac. "Trump Is Unhinged. But A Better, Cooler, More Polished Demagogue Could Rise In His Wake.". Slate Magazine. July 22, 2016. Isaac Chotiner is the Executive Editor of The New Republic, LLC, an assistant editor and reporter-researcher at Bloomberg, and a contributor at Slate and the Washington Post. He has a degree in political science from UC Davis. WC Failure to check demagoguery guarantees environmental apocalypse and extinction.Haraldsson, Hrafnkell, and Noam Chomsky. "Noam Chomsky Says GOP is the ‘Most Dangerous Organization in World History’." Politicus, 15 Nov. 2016, www.politicususa.com/2016/11/15/ noam-chomsky-gop-most-dangerous-organization-world-history.html. Accessed 24 Jan. 2017. WC Advantage 2 – PsychoanalysisDiscrimination is inevitable – speech restrictions just force people to bottle up their feelings– drives hate under ground and re-entrenches prejudice.Leonard 93 (Leonard, James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782.. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.) WC This link turns your K’s and DA’s – speech is the only alternative to real world violence. Contention 2 – SolvencyCounter-speech best solves hate – empirics.Davis, Alexander. "The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study on Pushing the Boundaries of the Freedom of Speech." Digital Commons, June 2016, digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1119andcontext=joursp. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017. WC Empirics go AFF – none of their hate speech args will include a comprehensive analysis of how speech codes have historically affected minorities.Strossen ’90 (Nadine Strossen – ACLU; Professor of Law at NYU, Duke University School of Law, “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555) Resentment of speech codes kills their solvency.Leonard 2 (James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782. WC *Brackets for clarity) Speech codes cause racialized violence.Leonard 3 (James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782. WC *Brackets for clarity) Hold CP’s to a high threshold – every card in this contention is a sufficient disad to kill their solvency.UnderviewInterpretationAt the 2017 UNLV tournament in the LD division the Neg only gets PICs when the Aff doesn’t defend the whole resolution.
Net BensOmmitted | 2/22/17 |
JanFeb 1AC -- McGowanTournament: - | Round: 1 | Opponent: - | Judge: - Contention 1 – The GoodWelcome to LD debate, where every two months we’re assigned a relevant political topic to analyze and research. We then discuss it, debating whether or not a hypothetical plan will make the world a better place. Through this process, we gain education about a variety of issues that allow us go out into society and do our part to make it better. But something is missing from this narrative, a question that has never been answered – why are we pursuing a better world in the first place?Political thought, since its conception, has been dogmatically bound to the idea of a "good" society at the end of the road – we endlessly pursue ways to solve society’s problems, never realizing that that very pursuit is the problem.McGowan, Todd. Enjoying What We Don't Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis. Lincoln, U of Nebraska P, 2013. WC ====Speech codes are no exception – they are premised on a utopian pursuit in which colleges securitize language in an attempt to eliminate discrimination.==== ====The political attempt to censor violent language is doomed to failure because it has never factored in the psychological force that creates that violence – the death drive. The death drive is based on an unconscious enjoyment that can only be sustained through perpetual loss. Without addressing the death drive, any progressive action is doomed to failure from the moment it’s conceived because it can never account for the root cause of conflict.==== ====Failure to recognize the death drive locks us in to cycles of failure ultimately culminating in extinction – fundamentally rethinking our politics is the only way to break the cycle.==== The role of the judge is thus to deconstruct the pursuit of the good within debate. This is a prerequisite to everything else, including the resolution, because without radically challenging the way that we approach progress any action is doomed to perpetual failure.Only by basing our politics on a recognition of the death drive are we able to break out of the cycles of policy failure and target the root cause of violence.McGowan 4 (Todd. Enjoying What We Don't Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis. Lincoln, U of Nebraska P, 2013.) WC Thus I affirm the resolution as a method of embracing the death drive. An affirmative ballot represents the rejection of a better world, abandoning the utopian aspirations of speech codes in exchange for radical inaction. Instead of projecting better future worlds through hypothetical policy, we challenge the psychological structures that replicate suffering within the status quo.Contention 2 – Not SolvencyOur alt doesn’t solve, it doesn’t create to a better world, it doesn’t eliminate the problems of the status quo. It instead operates as a pre-requisite to change. We aren’t complacent with oppression, but rather a challenge to the psychological structure that produces oppression to begin with.McGowan 5 (Todd. Enjoying What We Don't Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis. Lincoln, U of Nebraska P, 2013.) WC ====The second net-benefit to the alt is its interaction with unconscious knowledge. All other forms of political thought assume our conscious knowledge is the extent of our psyche, however, psychoanalysis reveals that it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Instead, it’s our unconscious – the realm of our psyche formed by our suppressed desires and drives – that acts as the basis for all of our actions. Only through the alt can we bracket off our conscious knowledge and examine the underlying structures of the unconscious that would otherwise doom any action to serial policy failure.==== Experimental data and empirical evidence prove that psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and valid.Petocz, professor at the University of Western Sydney, 15 Clinical studies also support psychoanalysis; Mahrer, Robinson, Dufresne, and most other critics are hacks – they have pre-existing biases against psychoanalysis without really understanding the theory.Mills, Jon. "Reflections on the Death Drive." Process Psychology.com, 2006, www.processpsychology.com/new-articles2/Freud20on20Todestrieb.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov. 2016. Dr. Mills is a board certified clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, and a certified member in good standing with the Canadian Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. He holds six university and post-graduate degrees including two doctorates, as well as post-doctoral training and international scholarly recognition. With twenty years of clinical experience, he specializes in the assessment and treatment of many psychological disorders upon which he is widely published. He is founding President of the Section on Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Psychology of the Canadian Psychological Association, Editor of two international book series, author and/or editor of over one-hundred publications including twelve books, and teaches as Core Faculty and clinical supervisior at the Adler School of Graduate Studies in Toronto. He is the only psychologist in Canada with double board certification in clinical psychology and psychoanalysis. WC Prefer this card because:1. Jon Mills has 6 degrees including 2 PhD’s, as well as post-doctoral training, international scholarly recognition, more than 30 years of clinical experience, has published 12 books and over 100 other publications, is the editor of two international book series, a professor, and the founding president of the Section on Psychoanalysis in the Canadian Psychological Association.2. It’s specific to the theory of the death drive – hold any indicts to the same threshold. Generic a2 psychoanalysis cards are based on specific instances that aren’t representative – like saying all medicine is a hoax because Dr. Oz is. Psychoanalysis is a diverse field; we only defend the theory of the death drive. | 4/8/17 |
NovDec 1AC - Structural ViolenceTournament: Alta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Corner Canyon TB | Judge: Ashan Peiris Critiquing everyday structural violence is key to combatting dehumanization – the system relies on ignorance to justify genocide. Dehumanization begins in our minds, driven by a securitizing fear of the "other" – police are thus celebrated as hero figures, not in spite of their anti-Black violence, but because of it. Exposing this system and creating a "call to alarm" is key to fight the structural genocide that is hidden in plain sight The Role of the Ballot is thus to vote for the team that best methodologically challenges structural violence. The Role of the Ballot is best achieved through the marriage of critical theory and concrete analysis – any attempt to address structural problems without this combination invariably fails. C1 –Status Quo Police brutality is a form of structural violence based on the dehumanization of Black Americans. This structural violence has created a biopolitical police state that we sustain through ignorance and a lack of accountability. This creates concrete conditions of suffering against which there is no defense. Empirical analysis proves that the primary cause of this violence is a lack of accountability. Lack of accountability can be attributed directly to qualified immunity – the term “clearly established” has created a condition of absolute immunity, destroying the only recourse against police brutality. The Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Pearson v. Callahan has made this problem infinitely regressive – it requires that there be legal precedent, but makes it impossible to establish that precedent. The tipping point is now – limiting immunity is critical to stop an irreversible descent into a militarized police state where structural violence is inevitable. Thus I affirm that the United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. In the interest of a stable advocacy, I will defend the Supreme Court overturning the Pearson v. Callahan ruling and reinstating the precedent set by Saucier v. Katz. To clarify, this advocacy is a way of meeting the Role of the Ballot – by proposing real world solutions, we bring about concrete analysis of modes of structural violence that creates a starting point for real world action independent of post-fiat solvency, as indicated in both the Scheper-Hughes and Keohane evidence. C2 – Solvency Limiting immunity is key to creating accountability and fighting misconduct while maintaining a reasonability standard. Increased accountability solves – fosters trust, improves police performance, and reverses the “us-against-them” mentality that reproduces police violence through cycles of animosity. The Aff best meets the Role of the Ballot – the very act of questioning the system opens the door to real-world change. | 1/23/17 |
NovDec 1AC -- SemiocapitalismTournament: Alta | Round: Doubles | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 1/23/17 |
NovDec 1AC -- Structural ViolenceTournament: Alta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Corner Canyon TB | Judge: Ashan Peiris Critiquing everyday structural violence is key to combatting dehumanization – the system relies on ignorance to justify genocide. Dehumanization begins in our minds, driven by a securitizing fear of the "other" – police are thus celebrated as hero figures, not in spite of their anti-Black violence, but because of it. Exposing this system and creating a "call to alarm" is key to fight the structural genocide that is hidden in plain sight The Role of the Ballot is thus to vote for the team that best methodologically challenges structural violence. The Role of the Ballot is best achieved through the marriage of critical theory and concrete analysis – any attempt to address structural problems without this combination invariably fails. C1 –Status Quo Police brutality is a form of structural violence based on the dehumanization of Black Americans. This structural violence has created a biopolitical police state that we sustain through ignorance and a lack of accountability. This creates concrete conditions of suffering against which there is no defense. Empirical analysis proves that the primary cause of this violence is a lack of accountability. Lack of accountability can be attributed directly to qualified immunity – the term “clearly established” has created a condition of absolute immunity, destroying the only recourse against police brutality. The Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Pearson v. Callahan has made this problem infinitely regressive – it requires that there be legal precedent, but makes it impossible to establish that precedent. The tipping point is now – limiting immunity is critical to stop an irreversible descent into a militarized police state where structural violence is inevitable. Thus I affirm that the United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. In the interest of a stable advocacy, I will defend the Supreme Court overturning the Pearson v. Callahan ruling and reinstating the precedent set by Saucier v. Katz. To clarify, this advocacy is a way of meeting the Role of the Ballot – by proposing real world solutions, we bring about concrete analysis of modes of structural violence that creates a starting point for real world action independent of post-fiat solvency, as indicated in both the Scheper-Hughes and Keohane evidence. C2 – Solvency Limiting immunity is key to creating accountability and fighting misconduct while maintaining a reasonability standard. Increased accountability solves – fosters trust, improves police performance, and reverses the “us-against-them” mentality that reproduces police violence through cycles of animosity. The Aff best meets the Role of the Ballot – the very act of questioning the system opens the door to real-world change. | 2/22/17 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/23/17 | awesleycarter@gmailcom |
|