Jump to content
danhep

[LD] [Autonomus Medical Choices] - Danhep (Aff) v. KAA99 (Neg)

Recommended Posts

- Looking for judges, but they are optional (We'll both debate if nobody can judge)

- This is a (progressive) LD debate

- Speech Word Counts (400wpm)

     - AC = 2400

     - 1NC = 2800

     - 1AR = 1600

     - 2NR = 2400

     - 2AR = 1200

- CX after AC and 1NC

- I will post AC after my opponent replies

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Looking for judges, but they are optional (We'll both debate if nobody can judge)

- This is a (progressive) LD debate

- Speech Word Counts (400wpm)

     - AC = 2400

     - 1NC = 2800

     - 1AR = 1600

     - 2NR = 2400

     - 2AR = 1200

- CX after AC and 1NC

- I will post AC after my opponent replies

 

This is me replying 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50kzl1.jpg

 

This is what I hate about LD. The amount of time you saved by not saying "...retations" is nonexistent, and thus unnecessarily modifies the author's words with the debater's words. Cut better.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why only focus on New York?

 

Do other places in the world also have adolescent autonomy problems?

 

Does the Tennessee model only give the adolescents the final decision? Do parents get to still be involved at all?

 

What is your age range for an adolescent?

 

Is egocentric epistemology bad? What is egocentric epistemology? Example?

 

Can adolescents still reject the Tennessee model and still allow for their parents to make decisions for them?

 

Are all adolescents competent to make autonomous medical choices?

 

Is totalization egocentric?

 

What or who can constitute as an Other?

 

Explian the last card, Alcoff, 91.

Should parents be involved in the adolescent medical decision making process at all?

 

Who should have the power in this situation? The parents or the adolescent?

 

Is the right to life and death the only medical autonomy controversy? Can parents control the adolescent's other medical choices?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why only focus on New York?

 

Only solvency advocate I could find XD. I'll spec to US if you want.

 

Do other places in the world also have adolescent autonomy problems?

 

Maybe

 

Does the Tennessee model only give the adolescents the final decision? Do parents get to still be involved at all?

 

The Plan gives adolescents (14+) the ability to refuse treatment. Parents can get involved if the adolescent wants them to.

 

What is your age range for an adolescent?

 

14+

 

Is egocentric epistemology bad? What is egocentric epistemology? Example?

 

An egocentric epistemology is bad because it creates conditions for totalization (violates the standard). An egocentric epistemology is when we totalize things to our experiences and how we know them. For example (let's go topic specific), if I'm a parent and my son is going through chemo, he may talk about how the suffering isn't worth it and how he can't go through another day and how he wants to end his life. However, I totalize by saying "Ah, chemo's nothing - don't you wanna live?"

 

Can adolescents still reject the Tennessee model and still allow for their parents to make decisions for them?

 

They can't reject the policy itself, but they, as autonomus agents, can decide to do what their parent suggests. If they want, I guess they can forfeit autonomy to the parent.

 

Are all adolescents competent to make autonomous medical choices?

 

Over 14 is adolescent (don't go for T pls, I'll read a definition in the next speech if you want), so yes

 

Is totalization egocentric?

 

Yes

 

What or who can constitute as an Other?

 

Anyone Other than you. To me, you're an Other

 

Explian the last card, Alcoff, 91.

 

Narrative stuff. Basically, from where one speaks from has epistemic credibility. The oppressed need to speak from themselves as SFO leads to more oppression.

 

Should parents be involved in the adolescent medical decision making process at all?

 

If the adolescent wants them to

 

Who should have the power in this situation? The parents or the adolescent?

 

Adolescent

 

Is the right to life and death the only medical autonomy controversy? Can parents control the adolescent's other medical choices?

 

I only spec to this one situation, but there is obviously other med autonomy contreversies.

 

I'm cool with more CX questions/clarification

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50kzl1.jpg

 

This is what I hate about LD. The amount of time you saved by not saying "...retations" is nonexistent, and thus unnecessarily modifies the author's words with the debater's words. Cut better.

3 syllables means a lot... just gotta beware of brackets theory (Yes, that's a thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take more than half a second to say "-retations," your problem is your speed, not the latter half of the word.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Woops! Double post

Few more questions?

 

So can an adolescent completely shut out the parent in this medical decision? Like can they refuse to seek council with the parents?

 

Is New York more important than the rest of the world?

 

Is New York exactly the same as the rest of the world in culture?

 

Post the 1NC tomorrow probably, but may get it done tonight (AP World reading  :P )

Edited by KAA99
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more questions?

 

So can an adolescent completely shut out the parent in this medical decision? Like can they refuse to seek council with the parents?

 

Yes. The plan grants adolescents the right to refuse life-threatening treatment.

 

Is New York more important than the rest of the world?

 

No. I'll spec broader if you want though.

 

Is New York exactly the same as the rest of the world in culture?

 

No...

 

Post the 1NC tomorrow probably, but may get it done tonight (AP World reading  :P )

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's the theory

 

Anyways, Levinas is an interesting approach 

Honestly policy theory isn't much better... much blippier in the first speech and almost no warrants (specifically those one line theory arguments)

 

However, policy does read theory on legit things rather than dumb things like in LD, but it's not that common in LD anymore.

Edited by goodatthis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly policy theory isn't much better... much blippier in the first speech and almost no warrants (specifically those one line theory arguments)

 

However, policy does read theory on legit things rather than dumb things like in LD, but it's not that common in LD anymore.

Our theory isn't "bad" because it doesn't warrant why ground loss is key to fairness, such things are self-evident. This article http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/08/28/on-theory-internal-links/ provides a pretty good critique of LDs sillier theory norms. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our theory isn't "bad" because it doesn't warrant why ground loss is key to fairness, such things are self-evident. This article http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/08/28/on-theory-internal-links/ provides a pretty good critique of LDs sillier theory norms. 

I'm not really talking about that, I agree for the most part with that article, I'm talking about things like "reject the argument not the team" with literally zero warrant as to why, or "kills neg ground- we can't read DAs or Ks" which all make no sense since it's just assumed that all of these things are true.

 

I think LD theory is much more well-developed. The internal links part might be a little silly but accepting other things to be true can get risky- i.e. if I read a NIBs bad shell, which is extremely common, do I just say "strat skew- I can't turn it" and assume all of the internal links to why it affects the round are there? How does not being able to turn something mean the other debater should lose? The same goes for policy theory- if you lose access to agent CPs or certain DAs or something, how does that affect you so much that the other team should lose for it? Also, I think something Bob was getting at in that article is the fact that we know why ground loss is bad, but the internal links we provide are too generic and don't really make sense. If I lose access to brazil DAs because the aff defends the US, should they lose for it?

 

EDIT: I'll judge by the way.

Edited by goodatthis
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly policy theory isn't much better... much blippier in the first speech and almost no warrants (specifically those one line theory arguments)

 

However, policy does read theory on legit things rather than dumb things like in LD, but it's not that common in LD anymore.

If you have to read theory in the 1AC you're doing it wrong. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to read theory in the 1AC you're doing it wrong. 

You also have to remember that policy has a 1:1 1NC:2AC time ratio- LD has a 7:4, which is much much less time to answer theory, and you have to answer it well since the neg has 6 minutes. Additionally, the 1AC:1NC time ratio for policy is equal, whereas in LD it's slightly skewed to the neg. Theory in the 1AC makes it easier on the theory debate for the 1AR. 

 

By the way this isn't the best thread to do this, fyi

Edited by goodatthis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly policy theory isn't much better... much blippier in the first speech and almost no warrants (specifically those one line theory arguments)

 

However, policy does read theory on legit things rather than dumb things like in LD, but it's not that common in LD anymore.

 

I'm not really talking about that, I agree for the most part with that article, I'm talking about things like "reject the argument not the team" with literally zero warrant as to why, or "kills neg ground- we can't read DAs or Ks" which all make no sense since it's just assumed that all of these things are true.

 

I think LD theory is much more well-developed. The internal links part might be a little silly but accepting other things to be true can get risky- i.e. if I read a NIBs bad shell, which is extremely common, do I just say "strat skew- I can't turn it" and assume all of the internal links to why it affects the round are there? How does not being able to turn something mean the other debater should lose? The same goes for policy theory- if you lose access to agent CPs or certain DAs or something, how does that affect you so much that the other team should lose for it? Also, I think something Bob was getting at in that article is the fact that we know why ground loss is bad, but the internal links we provide are too generic and don't really make sense. If I lose access to brazil DAs because the aff defends the US, should they lose for it?

 

EDIT: I'll judge by the way.

 

See, the problem is you're comparing bad policy theory to what's considered 'middle of the road' or 'decent' LD theory. If you watch college debaters go for theory (well maybe not so much JV/Novice) or nat cir HS debaters it's leagues ahead. Yes, the shell is generic, but when the good debaters go for it for 6 minutes of the 2NR/2AR it's a whole different ball game. Shells are 'more generic' in policy because unlike in what I've seen in a lot of LD debates, the arguments actually will evolve and develop over the course of the debate. With only 2 negative speeches and shorter aff speech times compared to 4 longer speeches per side in policy, much of that evolution and depth tends to be lost (just what I've observed, perhaps it's different in like LD at the TOC but I've never had an interest in watching that). 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

First K -

 

1. How exactly do I link? Is it just because I speced to a western area?

 

2. How do we do the alt, that is, "unthinking?

 

3. Do you read any framework (EX: Epistemology first)?

 

Cap K -

 

1. What's the warrant for root cause?

 

2. What exactly does the alt do?

 

3. Do you read any framework (EX: Epistemology first)?

 

Case Answers -

 

1. What's the warrant in the Eurocentrism turn? I said in CX I would spec broader if you want.

 

2. What's the implication of the Smith card?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

First K -

 

1. How exactly do I link? Is it just because I speced to a western area?

 

You only care about the West and you use Western methodology

 

2. How do we do the alt, that is, "unthinking?

 

Unthink eurocentrism 

 

3. Do you read any framework (EX: Epistemology first)?

 

Epistemology first applies to this K yes 

 

Cap K -

 

1. What's the warrant for root cause?

 

Cap leads to ageism and other discriminative policies 

 

2. What exactly does the alt do?

 

Reject competition and embrace cooperation

 

3. Do you read any framework (EX: Epistemology first)?

 

Same as above

 

Case Answers -

 

1. What's the warrant in the Eurocentrism turn? I said in CX I would spec broader if you want.

 

You already were eurocentric, you can't say "oh I'll change it" or that will be severance 

 

2. What's the implication of the Smith card?

 

Eurocentrism impact 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...