Tournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: Henry Giroux | Judge: Immanuel Kant
I'll disclose affs after each tournament, but I only disclose positions I write. Some of my stuff might be on Mountain View DZ's wiki. If you want to contact me about what I'll be reading etc, you can find me on facebook under my name-Varun Paranjpe.

Tournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all
Interpretation: If the negative contests the affirmative's framework, then they must specify a normative ethic in the text of the 1NC. 

Interpretation: The negative must either accept the affirmative framework or the affirmative contention. Accept means to take as is, means recontextualizations are violations. To clarify, the neg must meet AFC, affirmative framework choice or ACC, affirmative contention choice.

Interpretation: If the negative reads a role of the ballot, they must explicitly delineate the warrants for that role of the ballot and explain how to weigh offense under it. 

Interpretation: The negative must fiat an action that can be taken outside the context of a debate round.

Tournament: Harvard-Westlake | Round: 6 | Opponent: Greenhill SK | Judge: Nigel Ward
1AC

1AC-Framework
Same aff as R1 w modified underview
First, Ideal theory’s A) inevitable, which non-uniques disads and B) frames non-ideal judgments. Arvan ’14:
Posted by Marcus Arvan on 05/03/2014 at 11:05 AM What's not wrong with ideal theory http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/05/whats-not-wrong-with-ideal-theory.html#sthash.rHY1Rv7v.dpuf
This is fallacious. I entirely agree that it is important not to confuse the
AND
to do nonideal theory inevitably -- if only tacitly -- appeals to ideals.

Second, Moral claims must be a priori—our perceptions are inherently suspect, since we can’t verify if our experiences are correct except through these experiences Kant:
We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if When we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses as with sleep in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they objects cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us. since We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for its being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different.

Thus, the meta-ethic is procedural moral realism. Korsgaard ONE clarifies:
All cards are from Sources of Normativity by Korsgaard
What distinguishes substantive from procedural realism is a view about the relationship between the answers
AND
facts that exist independently of those procedures, which those procedures track.35

Prefer since substantive realism relies on an implausible epistemology. Korsgaard TWO:
Substantive realism conceives
I think it is not the point he meant to make.

Takes out Cummiskey (equality), Nagel, Sinhababu, impact-justified, and oppression-only frameworks. They assume substantive moral realism by assuming the correct ethic happens to track the good.

Here’s the procedure: it’s practical reason. Korsgaard THREE:
The connection is also present in the concept
of integrity. Etymologically, integrity is oneness, integration is what makes something one
AND
If reasons arise from reflective endorsement, then obligation arises from reflective rejection.

Implications: 

A) No universality indicts – since you can bring any identity in question, reason must be universal when used well. Also this perms any K. I might’ve poorly used reason, but that just means a refined form of Kant is good, so it’s compatible with my aff.

That implies intersubjectivity—Reasons must be public, explaining why we can understand the reasons others have, while still identifying primarily with our own. Thus reasons must be universal since they stem from humanity. Korsgaard FOUR:
There are reasons for
out of respect for the humanity of those who have them.

Next, reason must be universalizable. 2+2=4 for me just as much as it does for you because there’ nothing exceptional about my will. Coercion is not universalizable because it’s a simultaneous extension and limitation of freedom.

Independent warrants:

1) The nature of laws implies the state must look to the united will. Ripstein  Bracketed for clarity
All people have the right to act for themselves. Kant argues that provision for the poor follows directly from the very idea of a united will. He remarks that the idea of a united lawgiving will requires that citizens regard the state as existing in perpetuity. By this he does not mean to impose an absurd requirement that people live forever,or even the weaker one that it must sustain an adequate population, or make sure that all of its members survive. The state does need to maintain its material preconditions, and as we saw in Chapter 7, this need generates its entitlement to “administer the state’s economy and finance.The state’s existence in perpetuity, however, is presented as a pure normative requirement, grounded in its ability to speak and act for everyone. That ability must be able to survive changes in the state’s membership. You are the same person you were a year ago because your normative principle of organization has stayed the same through changes in the matter making you up. As a being entitled to set and pursue your own purposes, you decide what your continuing body will do. That is why your deeds can be imputed to you even after every molecule in your body has changed, and even if you have forgotten what you did. The unity of your agency is created by the normative principle that makes your actions imputable to you. In the same way, the state must sustain its basic normative principle of organization through time, even as some members die or move away and new ones are born or move in. As we saw in Chapter 7, its unifying principle—“in terms of which alone we can think of the legitimacy of the state”—is the idea of the original contract, through which people are bound by laws they have given themselves through public institutions. The state must have the structure that is required in order for everyone to be bound by it, so that it can legitimately claim to speak and act for all across time. The requirement of unity across time is clear in the cases of legislation by officials: if the official’s decision were only binding while a particular human being held office, a citizen would be entitled to regard laws as void once the official’s term ended. Because each person is master of him- or herself, one person is only bound by the authority of another through the idea of a united will. sustains the legitimacy of So the idea of a united will presupposes some manner in which it exists through time. Past legislation, like past agreement, can only bind those who come after if the structure through which laws are made is one that can bind everyone it governs.

2) Only rational willing contains unconditional value; facts about the world only have value relative to agents. Korsgaard FIVE:
Christine Korsgaard, “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 92, No. 2    (Apr., 1983), 182..
In order for there to be objectively good ends, however, there must be
AND
by reason of their rational choices and so also as ends in themselves.

Impacts:

A) only universal reasons generates state obligation since that’s the only thing that everyone can access; pleasure constantly conflicts 

B) this means preserving freedom; the ability to set and pursue ends is shared by all citizens-else they couldn’t choose to be in the contract.  

Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom. 

1AC-Advocacy

I defend the whole resolution-public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any Constitutionally protected speech. 

1AC-Contention

Speech in its self does not constitute a wrong-thus prohibiting it is coercive.
Varden 10 explains
 A Kantian Conception of Free Speech Helga Varden, former student of the OG Ripstein, In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer (2010) philpapers.org/rec/VARAKC-5
This distinction between internal and external use of choice and freedom explains why Kant maintains
AND
cannot be seen as involving wrongdoing from the point of view of right.

Prohibiting something or some activity that is not a wrong is itself a wrong.
Ripstein 09
Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009
Each person’s entitlement to decide how his or her powers will be used precludes prohibiting
AND
you provide me with favorable background conditions to use my own powers.26 

1AC-Underview
z’nourrwringmm.”

1-if both sides have offense on theory, affirm
2-() Affirming universal rights is the most effective means of challenging oppression , Ignatief.
Michael Ignatief 1, Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, "The Attack on Human Rights", Foreign Affairs, November/December

But at the same time, Western defenders of human rights have traded too much
AND
people, especially women, in theocratic, traditional, or patriarchal societies.

3-1ar theory is drop the debater and no rvis 

4-Abstraction key to stopping racism whereas contrary logic encourages oppression. Wood :
in the application of the theory, from every perversion or abuse through the influence
AND
itself is actually responsible for a lot of the evil that people do.

5- Fairness is a voter 

A.
B. 

C. Inclusivity: an unfair model of debate kills the incentive for people to debate in the first place. That link turns all their offense since there’s no incentive to do work, read and come to tournaments to learn anything. Speice and Lyle
  Speice, Patrick Wake Forest University, Lyle, Jim Debate Coach, Clarion University “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever” (2003)  
As with any game or sport,
that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all
1AC

1AC-Framing

The standard is resisting militarism:

First¸ militarism epistemologically corrupts all political thought-confronting it is a prior question
Pieterse 7
Jan Nederveen, professor of sociology at the University of Illinois, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug., “Political and Economic Brinkmanship,” p. 473-4
Brinkmanship and producing instability carry several meanings. The American military spends 48 of
AND
the need for postwar planning (Packer, 2005; Lang, 2004).

Second, Militarism has inflicted massive suffering and casualties – without immediate action, militarism will lead us into a death spiral that threatens the planet and humanity. That’s try or die CACC 11:
Admin, “Rejecting Militarism”, FEBRUARY 15, 2011, Canadians for Emergency action on Climate Change, http://climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/15/rejecting-militarism/ climate change, wars, displacement, resource scarcity, false solutions, wealth concentration
Resources: 1 http://www.fcnl.org/budget/
AND
will not accept the death spiral of militarism, war and climate change. 

Third, overseas militarism comes home to roost-causes police abuse and fascism
Jenkins, Social Economics Department Chair @ Hampton Institute, 14
Colin Jenkins, “Coming Home to Roost: American Militarism, War Culture, and Police Brutality”. February 27th, 2014. Society and Culture. The Hampton Institute. Colin Jenkins is founder, editor and Social Economics Department chair at the Hampton Institute, and has been published at Truthout, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report, Popular Resistance, Z Magazine, and New Politics.
America's culture of war and violence was bound to catch up to all of us
AND
, transcending targeted demographics to include a working-class-wide assault.

This creation of a militaristic society destroys open deliberation and ethical thought-fighting back in pedagogical spaces is key
Giroux 13
(Henry Giroux history teacher in Rhode Island, for six years,2 held positions at Boston University, Miami University, and Penn State.  " http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/10/13/the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy/)
At a time when the public good is under attack and there seems to be
AND
critical pedagogy illuminates the relationships among knowledge, authority and power.11

Activist movements are being crushed in the mainstream-only discussion of direct solutions to militarism in pedagogical spaces solves
Hanrahan
Hanrahan, Clare. “Militarism and the ‘Economics of Extinction’”, no date, published post 2010, Humans for Peace
Climate change activists, rightly concerned about the continued use of fossil fuels to power
AND
with the economics of extinction." We cannot let this be the end.

1AC-Overseas Militarism

Contention 1 is US militarism:

First: 

The American naval doctrine of mastery over the oceans militarizes the seas.
Connery 01
Connery, C. L. "Ideologies of Land and Sea: Alfred Thayer Mahan, Carl Schmitt, and the Shaping of Global Myth Elements." boundary 2 28.2 (2001): 173-201. Project MUSE. Web. 6 Sep. 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/.
Alfred Mahan’s work The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 stands
AND
, has ensured his continued influence on U.S. Pacific strategy.

The oceans have been militarized by the state to assert nuclear power-this is epistemologically overlooked. Supposed freedom of navigation is destroyed by US military exercises.
Deloughrey, Humanities prof @ Berkeley, 10
Deloughrey, Elizabeth. "Heavy Waters: Waste and Atlantic Modernity." Theories and Methodologies 3.125 (2010): 703-12. Modern Language Association of America, 2010. Web. 5 Sept. 2016. Prof DeLoughrey teaches postcolonial literature courses on the environment, globalization, militarism, the politics of food, women’s writing and migration, and Caribbean and Pacific Island literatures. In 2013-14 she was on leave at the Huntington Library as an ACLS Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellow, and in June 2015 she was Visiting Professor at Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier, France.
Elsewhere I’ve written about the rise of ocean studies and the ways in which the
AND
-­powered vessels patrolled the world’s oceans (Davis and Van Dyke 467).

This geopolitical form of militarism is uniquely Anglocentric and epistemologically corrupting-outweighs and is the root cause all other manifestations of militarism
Connery TWO
Connery, C. L. "Ideologies of Land and Sea: Alfred Thayer Mahan, Carl Schmitt, and the Shaping of Global Myth Elements." boundary 2 28.2 (2001): 173-201. Project MUSE. Web. 6 Sep. 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/.
The geo-imaginary is powerful. It has given us such ideas as Europe
AND
forces that account for the rise of U.S. global power.

Second:

The promotion of nuclear energy is a cheap front for militarism
Hanrahan
Hanrahan, Clare. “Militarism and the ‘Economics of Extinction’”, no date, published post 2010, Humans for Peace
War is an all out assault on life. Every living being is in peril
AND
theaters, at a cost of $9.6 billion in 2010.

Nuclear power production is a shallow excuse for weaponization
Ackland 9 - Len Ackland, co-director of the Center for Environmental Journalism., (“Weapons proliferation a big risk with nuclear power” February 10, 2009, http://www.cejournal.net/?p=903) LADI
As Tom Yulsman points out in his Feb. 5 posting, the tight connection
AND
record.  And that still would be a long way from proliferation proof.

1AC-Advocacy

Thus, I advocate a ban on the production of nuclear power in the United States and on all United States naval vessels. 

1AC-Solvency

Contention two is solvency:

First, banning nuclear power solves naval power:

Every submarine and aircraft carrier relies on nuclear power
Meyer, Atlantic associate tech editor, 14
Robinson Meyer, associate technology editor @ The Atlantic 10-8-2014, "What It Felt Like to Test the First Submarine Nuclear Reactor," Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/what-it-was-like-to-test-the-first-submarine-nuclear-reactor/381195/
The Nautilus turned 60 last week, and the U.S. Navy celebrated both its anniversary and six decades of a nuclear navy. That nuclear navy now encompasses some 80 ships. All of the navy’s submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered.

No shift to diesel submarines
Holmes, Strategy prof @ Naval War College, 14
James Holmes, 9-18-2014, "U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?," National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-submarines-run-silent-run-deepon-diesel-engines-11306?page=3 James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and coauthor of Red Star over the Pacific.
Admittedly, the barriers to reentry into conventional submarine warfare would be formidable. For
AND
the pushback from guardians of the status quo would be frightful to behold.

Nuclear subs are uniquely what sustain US naval militarism
Majumbar, writer for National Interest, 15
Dave Majumbar, writer for National Interest, “Nuclear Submarines: America's New Aircraft Carriers?” Apr 7 2015, National Interest
A new class of nuclear-powered guided missile submarines could be the key to
AND
that submarines might be the best option during high-end combat operations. 

Second, legal actions affect culture-civil rights movement proves
Masket 15
SETH MASKET, OCT 5, 2015, “You Can Change Laws Without Changing Hearts and Minds” http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/you-can-change-laws-without-changing-hearts-and-minds
In the wake of yet another mass shooting, a rather familiar public debate is
AND
some of those changes have done the country a great deal of good.

Third, reduction in US power solves militarism globally-

American primacy is the root cause of global fear politics and militarization
Layne, National Security Chair @ Texas AandM School of Govt, 07
Christopher, professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas AandM University, American Empire: A Debate, 2007
The claim that others regard American primacy as benevolent because of U.S.
AND
others of its benevolence is limited by the very enormity of its power.   

Fourth, discussion of state policy is a useful heuristic for activism
Zanotti 14 Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech.  Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance.“Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World” – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated “Version of Record” is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database. 

By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of
AND
position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.’’84

Tournament: hw | Round: 1 | Opponent: idk | Judge: Michael Harris
The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism. Korsgaard ONE clarifies:
(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 20)
What distinguishes substantive from procedural realism
 which those procedures track.35

Prefer since substantive realism relies on an implausible epistemology. Korsgaard TWO:
(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 20-21)
Substantive realism conceives the procedures
he meant to make.

Intersubjectivity first. It explains why we can understand the reasons others have, while still identifying primarily with our own. They stem from humanity. Korsgaard FIVE:
(Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard, page 47-48)
There are reasons for caring about these things,  , but rather out of respect for the humanity of those who have them.

Tournament: CPs | Round: 1 | Opponent: ALL | Judge: all
1) The nature of laws implies the state must look to the united will. Ripstein  Bracketed for clarity
(Arthur Ripstein, University of Toronto, Force and Freedom. pp 50-51
All people have the right to act for themselves. Kant argues that provision for the poor follows directly from the very idea of a united will. He remarks that the idea of a united lawgiving will requires that citizens regard the state as existing in perpetuity. By this he does not mean to impose an absurd requirement that people live forever,or even the weaker one that it must sustain an adequate population, or make sure that all of its members survive. The state does need to maintain its material preconditions, and as we saw in Chapter 7, this need generates its entitlement to “administer the state’s economy and finance.The state’s existence in perpetuity, however, is presented as a pure normative requirement, grounded in its ability to speak and act for everyone. That ability must be able to survive changes in the state’s membership. You are the same person you were a year ago because your normative principle of organization has stayed the same through changes in the matter making you up. As a being entitled to set and pursue your own purposes, you decide what your continuing body will do. That is why your deeds can be imputed to you even after every molecule in your body has changed, and even if you have forgotten what you did. The unity of your agency is created by the normative principle that makes your actions imputable to you. In the same way, the state must sustain its basic normative principle of organization through time, even as some members die or move away and new ones are born or move in. As we saw in Chapter 7, its unifying principle—“in terms of which alone we can think of the legitimacy of the state”—is the idea of the original contract, through which people are bound by laws they have given themselves through public institutions. The state must have the structure that is required in order for everyone to be bound by it, so that it can legitimately claim to speak and act for all across time. The requirement of unity across time is clear in the cases of legislation by officials: if the official’s decision were only binding while a particular human being held office, a citizen would be entitled to regard laws as void once the official’s term ended. Because each person is master of him- or herself, one person is only bound by the authority of another through the idea of a united will. sustains the legitimacy of So the idea of a united will presupposes some manner in which it exists through time. Past legislation, like past agreement, can only bind those who come after if the structure through which laws are made is one that can bind everyone it governs.

2) Only rational willing contains unconditional value; facts about the world only have value relative to agents. Korsgaard:
Christine Korsgaard, “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 92, No. 2    (Apr., 1983), 182..
In order for there to be objectively good ends, however, there must be
AND
by reason of their rational choices and so also as ends in themselves.

Impacts:

A) only universal reasons generates state obligation since that’s the only thing that everyone can access; pleasure constantly conflicts 

B) this means preserving freedom; the ability to set and pursue ends is shared by all citizens-else they couldn’t choose to be in the contract.  

Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom. 

1AC-Advocacy

I defend the whole resolution-public colleges and universities in the United States ought not prohibit any Constitutionally protected speech. 

1AC-Contention

Speech in its self does not constitute a wrong-thus prohibiting it is coercive.
Varden 10 explains
 A Kantian Conception of Free Speech Helga Varden, former student of the OG Ripstein, In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer (2010) philpapers.org/rec/VARAKC-5
This distinction between internal and external use of choice and freedom explains why Kant maintains
AND
cannot be seen as involving wrongdoing from the point of view of right.

Prohibiting something or some activity that is not a wrong is itself a wrong.
Ripstein 09
Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom, 2009
Each person’s entitlement to decide how his or her powers will be used precludes prohibiting
AND
you provide me with favorable background conditions to use my own powers.26 

1AC-Underview

1-Reject specification on aff advocacies unless they can show me a specific disad they lost as a result of my practice-otherwise you didn’t lose any ground; also,  

2-Prefer reasonable aff interpretations on T and spec-the topic is poorly written and there’s a bunch of interpretations; also, if I do specify but you read the opposite interp, I still lose to theory regardless

Only free speech can create political progress for minorities-gay rights proves
Rauch 13 Jonathan Rauch, The Case for Hate Speech, The Atlantic, November 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524///LADI  
History shows that the more open the intellectual environment, the better minorities will do
AND
rule, that was enough. We had the coercive power of truth.

Resistance to free speech is an attempt to divide movements and impede social progress.
Halberstam 16 Jack Halberstam, You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma, Bully Bloggers, 5/7/16. LADI
What does it mean when younger people who are benefitting from several generations now of
AND
ekki-ekki-ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing, z’nourrwringmm.”

() Relying on intuition or dominant cultural norms is insufficient and counter-productive. Only universal reason can ground activism, Drescher 6.
Gary L. Drescher (Visiting Fellow at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, PhD in Computer Science from MIT). "Good and Real: Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics." Bradford Books. 5 May 2006.
Still, to the extent that evolution has rigged us with a disposition toward empathy the doctrine that there is no real distinction between right and wrong.