| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Dulles AW | Alex Laufer |
|
| ||
| 2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Kent Denver SL | Jane Brennan |
|
| ||
| 42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament | 1 | Cypress Woods YW | James Min |
|
| ||
| 42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament | 3 | Langley JM | Benjamin Koh |
|
| ||
| All | 1 | All | All |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 11/23/16 |
1 - Black White Binary KTournament: 2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: Alex Laufer Perea 97 And, exclusive focus on the black/white binary recreates anti-black divisions by allowing whiteness to claim that racism occurs for all groups. Hutchinson 04 The alternative is to create multi-racial coalitions against white supremacy. This allows more groups to join in and fight against whiteness–if the black body is the most oppressed group, then they obviously wouldn’t be in the best position to fight whiteness alone. Alcoff 03 | 1/7/17 |
1 - PICs BadTournament: 42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Langley JM | Judge: Benjamin Koh B-Violation: The negative is running a counterplan that lifts restrictions on the constitutionally protected speech. C-Standards: First, time skew. PICs moot the 6 minute AC giving neg a 13 to 7 advantage. Also, PICs force me to read new offense, which creates time skew for the 1AR. Second, ground. I can’t access free speech advantage if neg can just PIC out of it in the NC. Third, predictable limits. There’s no limit on what they can PIC out of. I have to prep answers to every minor alteration because I don’t know which one they’ll go for. Fourth, clash. PICs kill clash because they refocus the debate on minor details of the plan that have nothing to do with AC offense. Clash outweighs other education standards because it’s the only form unique to debate. You can get topic education by staying home and doing research. D-Voters: First, fairness is a voter since it’s a gateway issue to deciding the better debater. Second, education is a voter since it’s the end-goal of debate; substance doesn’t matter unless there’s an educational value to discussing it. Third, I’ll go for rejecting the argument is sufficient (A), The 1AR was skewed: I can’t redo it after the 2NR shifts. (B), Reject the arg means neg still has a chance at winning. (C), Reject-the-arg theory allows substance which is net beneficial. Fourth, prefer competing interps because reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. | 2/13/17 |
Jan-Feb-2017-Util AC v1Tournament: 42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cypress Woods YW | Judge: James Min In the past two decades, restrictive speech codes have become widespread on campuses. Burleigh 16 Thus, the advocacy: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I reserve the right to clarify, so no theory violations until they check in CX since we could’ve had an educational debate. Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because (A), 1AR time skew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance. (B), No risk theory gives neg a free source of no risk offense, which allows them to moot the 1AC. Aff gets reasonability on T because good is good enough. If I don't make it hard for them to win, don't vote on T. I’ll defend neg’s definition of the topic as long as it doesn’t affect 1AC offense. Advantage 1 is Endowments: Limitations on free speech are causing backlash from alumni–that causes declines in donations to alma maters. Brownfeld 16 And, endowments ensure quality research and innovation in universities–that ensures U.S. economic competitiveness and leadership. Leigh 14 And, economic competitiveness and technological innovation prevent great power war–that means extinction. Baru 09 And, the technological gap is closing–China and Russia’s developments are threatening U.S. hegemony. Webber 15 Advantage 2 is Racism: There is no evidence that speech codes reduce bigotry–they only serve to punish black students–empirics prove. Friedersdorf 15 And, empirics prove hate speech laws can’t be enforced–they get targeted against minorities. Ash 16 And, laws against hate speech cause racist views to go underground—that makes resistance less effective. Baker 08 Framework: Non-utilitarian intuitions are scope insensitive–util is key to avoiding cognitive biases. Yudkowsky 08 Thus, the standard is maximizing happiness. Prefer the standard because util is the only moral framework accessible to policy-makers. Goodin 90 Role of the Ballot: State action is inevitable–deliberation on policymaking is the only way to create social change in debate. Coverstone 05 Extinction First U/V: Everyday risk evaluation means magnitude multiplied by probability–existential threat operates on a higher level of impact calculus. Rees 08 And, we have an obligation to ensure the survival of future generations—that’s key to basic fairness and giving our lives meaning–that means reversibility and timeframe. Cerruti 14 | 2/12/17 |
Nov-Dec-2016-Util AC v1Tournament: 2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kent Denver SL | Judge: Jane Brennan Police misconduct is increasing now–this is the new “war on citizens.” Global Research News 15 Thus, the advocacy: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. I reserve the right to clarify, so no theory violations until they check in CX since we could’ve had an educational debate. Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because (A), 1AR time skew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance. (B), No risk theory gives neg a free source of no risk offense, which allows them to moot the 1AC. Aff gets reasonability on T because good is good enough. If I don't make it hard for them to win, don't vote on T. I’ll defend neg’s definition of the topic as long as it doesn’t affect 1AC offense. Misconduct Advantage: Rolling back qualified immunity holds police officers accountable–that solves misconduct. Wright 15 Scenario 1 is Soft Power: U.S. soft power is declining now—the only question is whether it’ll rebound soon. Lehmann 16 And, the continued lack of accountability for police misconduct hurts U.S. soft power. Lam 16 And, soft power is necessary for transnational cooperation–that solves climate change. Nye 04 And, soft power and climate change are real–the Paris Agreement proves that U.S. soft power was integral in leading climate initiatives–every five years is crucial. Jacquet and Jamieson 16 And, climate change causes extinction–it turns war, econ, and disease–it’s a conflict amplifier. Scenario 2 is Racism: The police kill more black people than any other race–they’re never held accountable. Wong 15 And, no indemnification–civil lawsuits makes systemic reform through departmental demands and public outcry. Geller and Toch 96 Framework: Revisionary intuitionism is true and concludes util. All ethical theories are derived from intuition, but non-utilitarian intuitions are scope insensitive, making them cognitively biased. Yudkowsky 08 Thus, the standard is maximizing happiness. Prefer the standard because util is the only moral framework accessible to policy-makers. Goodin 90 Role of the Ballot: State action is inevitable–deliberation on policymaking is the only way to create social change in debate. Coverstone 05 Extinction First U/V: Everyday risk evaluation means magnitude times probability–means existential threat operates on a higher level of impact calculus. Rees 08 And, we have an obligation to ensure the survival of future generations—that’s key to basic fairness and giving our lives meaning. Cerruti 14 And, extinction destroys any chance at having a future of freedom–that’s the internal link to all moral value. Jonas 96 | 1/7/17 |
Nov-Dec-2016-Util AC v2Tournament: 2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: Alex Laufer Police misconduct is increasing now–this is the new “war on citizens.” Global Research News 15 Thus, the advocacy: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. I reserve the right to clarify, so no theory violations until they check in CX since we could’ve had an educational debate. Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because (A), 1AR time skew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance. (B), No risk theory gives neg a free source of no risk offense, which allows them to moot the 1AC. Aff gets reasonability on T because good is good enough. If I don't make it hard for them to win, don't vote on T. I’ll defend neg’s definition of the topic as long as it doesn’t affect 1AC offense. Misconduct Advantage: Rolling back qualified immunity holds police officers accountable–that solves misconduct. Wright 15 Scenario 1 is Soft Power: U.S. soft power is declining now—the only question is whether it’ll rebound soon. Lehmann 16 And, the continued lack of accountability for police misconduct hurts U.S. soft power. Lam 16 And, soft power is necessary for transnational cooperation–that solves climate change. Nye 04 And, soft power and climate change are real–the Paris Agreement proves that U.S. soft power was integral in leading climate initiatives–every five years is crucial. Jacquet and Jamieson 16 And, climate change causes extinction–it turns war, econ, and disease–it’s a conflict amplifier. Scenario 2 is Racism: The police kill more black people than any other race–they’re never held accountable. Wong 15 And, qualified immunity let’s police officers get away with racially biased judgment–repercussions are necessary. Carrié 15 And, the costs of lawsuits affect police conduct–they increase defense insurance, cause stigma, and result in discipline. Rosen 05 Framework: Revisionary intuitionism is true and concludes util. All ethical theories are derived from intuition, but non-utilitarian intuitions are scope insensitive, making them cognitively biased. Yudkowsky 08 Thus, the standard is maximizing happiness. Prefer the standard because util is the only moral framework accessible to policy-makers. Goodin 90 Role of the Ballot: State action is inevitable–deliberation on policymaking is the only way to create social change in debate. Coverstone 05 Extinction First U/V: Everyday risk evaluation means magnitude times probability–means existential threat operates on a higher level of impact calculus. Rees 08 And, we have an obligation to ensure the survival of future generations—that’s key to basic fairness and giving our lives meaning. Cerruti 14 And, extinction destroys any chance at having a future of freedom–that’s the internal link to all moral value. Jonas 96 | 1/7/17 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|