Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About johnsmith59

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  1. There is no one particular style that is going to be outright preferred at NSDA nationals in LD, especially in prelims. I qualified in 2013 (it was NFL then). You have two judges per round and they are typically very different stylistically. For example, I debated a round where one judge stopped flowing after my opponent read a K, and the other voted on a Role of the Ballot argument. If you want to know more private message me and I will go more in depth/ share the information Stacy Thomas shared with debaters from my area in preparation for Nats.
  2. I think this is a really great topic for more traditional style and more policy oriented LD rounds. On the more traditional side of things. I think the res asks many questions. What is a just society? Who has jurisdiction of said society? What does ought mean? Does ought mean that the res takes place in a vacuum? What does procurement mean in terms of use of the organs? And what qualifies as deceased? I think that the res opens doors for a contractarian debate, that is, does the social contract permit the government to pursue this kind of action? If the government isn't granted this kind of action, who is the actor and what grounds are they granted to make this presumption. There is also the classic Moral obligation v should debate that can come out of the word ought. I think that taking these organs also could have scientific use as well as transplant use. This topic from a traditional stance, also allows for the util v deon debate to take place. I think an interesting position would also be determining at what point does one lose their rights to their body? Does death mean that rights are no longer valid? As for the more policy side of things, I think the options are nearly endless. I think the aff has several plan options they could pursue. Using the organs from dead inmates would be an interesting one, doing the res universally except in instances of religious conflicts (here you could take your pick on which one you would want to use), only in the cases of death by "natural causes," and in cases where the deceased has no family to claim the body There are plenty more, but those are the ones that come to mind right off the bat. The neg has even more options. CPs: Consult options Incentives for families of the deceased CP to legalize the selling of organs DAs Investigation interference Disease transmission Religious violations Economy DA Health insurance DA Scientific research DA Hospital space I'm not entirely sure what unique topic ground there is for the K. However, I am not well versed in the K lit.
  3. People don't post their analytics, just the cards in the structure that they are read. For theory preempts and the such, they usually just put down the bare minimum. For example, aff gets RVIs, but not the analytic warrants why
  4. Yale is an Octafinals bid level for PFD.
  5. I find that using Microsoft Onenote is the best way to flow on your computer. The download for it is free.
  6. johnsmith59


    Referring back to the original post in thread it was talking about the in round use. Typically how I have used/seen it used is either a reason to win the round by winning the skep framework and alienating the AC offense. It could also function as a condemnation of the 1AC ethic. But I don't think it used as an alternative but rather a reason to reject the affirmatives framework and avoid looking to their impacts.
  7. Morris '91 The card talks about how compliance with justice is the necessary requirement to make claims to be protected by justice. Violation of justice ultimately leads to one being stripped of full moral standing because of their disregard for the constraints that morality/justice places on them.
  8. johnsmith59


    That assumes that ethics are universal. Also that assumes that we know what "right" is. I think the key to understanding skep is looking at the most basic definition, that is, that certain knowledge is impossible. This is where things like emotivism and non-cognitivism come into play. I think that skep at its very foundation doesn't lead to infinite questioning as you stipulate, but rather opens the door to talk about whether or not skep is true in context of a specific resolution. If skep is not true then what do we look to for a framework, if it is true then what makes that knowledge impossible?
  9. "The perm of the CP proves the negative to be true so I negate" This was the RFD in an LD round I participated in at the state tournament.
  10. johnsmith59


    While I think that there is a danger to these sorts of arguments being abused, I again must highlight that the abuse isn't limited to just skep. As for the video that you posted there are a couple of things to note. First this is only one lecture from a 2-3 week camp and does not take into account the complexity of meta ethics, not should we expect it to. Secondly, based off of what I viewed in the video, it seems to me that the message is that you can run a meta ethic without calling it such. I think this is where the instructor goes into talking about Jalon Alexander and how he ran meta ethics without calling them such.
  11. Affirmative Framework Choice (AFC) or Affirmative Ethical Choice (AEC), Necessary but Insufficient Burdens (NIB's) are probably the most common theory arguments run on the national circuit. Condo/Dispo, implementation, T of K, T of plans are all things that are run as well. A lot of the theory arguments have to do with the framework debate.
  12. johnsmith59


    I feel that I should start this post with an apology to nathan_debate. I'm sorry about the way I approached, and came off in my responses. I also feel the need to bring clarity to my thoughts about skep. I think you do bring up some valid points, however, I still believe that even rule util, deontology, etc all have the same amount of potential to justify horrible things as skep. I think that you are certainly right in saying that skep has the potential to justify horrible things. I have confidence that no debater would actually run a position that actually justifies such atrocities. I am more than willing to discuss how all ethical/philosophical have to potential to justify horrible things. Finally, I never meant to imply that ethical stances weren't important. Again I feel like I must reiterate my apology of taking an adversarial approach as opposed to an inquisitorial approach to the discussion.
  13. johnsmith59


    The debater running the position most likely isn't going to be trying to justify rape and genocide. This also seems like an overarching philosophical question that avoids the true substantive educational value of skepticism. Even then, every single philosophical concepts or ethic can either justify or not justify these atrocities, util in particular. Skepticism doesn't care about the consequences of actions. Again I must highlight that this point only further conflates the issue. This is an overarching philosophical point that is not just limited to skep. First of all, skep doesn't say that morality can't be justified. Individuals can justify whatever they please, however, according to skep it would be impossible to obtain the knowledge to determine whether or not that individual claim is in fact justified. Also you can't just say things like justice is good because that avoids looking at the consequences of action. Also things like justice and rights, might have moral considerations involved but certainly are not dependent on a fluid conception of morality. Again I must point out that the end result of saying morality can be justified can be just as, if not more, damning. Util in particular has, historically, been used to justify many of the worlds worst atrocities. As a coach I find it particularly unsettling that someone would openly condemn one philosophical idea for reasons that could and should be applied to all forms of philosophy. Also you completely miss the point of the thread. This thread was about discussing how to run skepticism in LD, there are plenty of comments here that express that running skep might not be the best idea, but is a viable strategy. I would encourage you to do some actual reading on the subject, truly think about the in round use and provide something meaningful to the discussion. Finally I would hope that you avoid the continued use of a pedagogy that will do nothing but promote the narrowminded-ness, inconsistent argumentation, and lack of educational philosophical discussion. This kind of pedagogy is bad for you, your students, and the debate community as a whole.
  14. johnsmith59


    I think you completely devalue the educational value of discussions about skepticism. You also seem to forget that the skeptical arguments made are in context of a specific resolution. This would make it completely educational to discuss the relative application of moral/ethics in context of said topic. Also it seems illogical to say that all values are "just relative" then go on to express that skepticism means teacher can't do things like object to cheating. It seems by your description of skepticism, under a lens of relativism (which isn't necessarily skepticism), that we would have more in-depth discussion on said topics because we would have to critically evaluate reasons why the individual debater/position would trigger skepticism. Also skepticism can be used as a justification for things like rape and genocide, but the philosophical content of skep just says that certain knowledge is impossible to objectively compile. I would assume based on your assertions about skepticism completely disregard how every other ethical/moral system can literally justify the forms of domination expressed in your previous post. I in no way mean to insult or attack you on the issue. I just don't think, in my eyes, endorsing such radical and almost inconsistent view of skepticism brings any clarity to the reality of the philosophy.
  15. johnsmith59


    I did not intend to make it sound like skep was not going to be a winning position, just highlight some of the problems associated with running it. I agree that you could frontline theory and most likely win the debate there. However, I agree/disagree with a couple of points you make. First with the joyce analysis- His conclusions about moral claims don't make any sense. Actions in the eyes of morality are either considered moral, prohibited (immoral) or permissible. Joyce concludes that if nihilism is true then none of the above are true, which isn't how moral statements function in terms of the literature. Also when joyce was used against me, I just turned the argument, the moral dilemma that he puts us in prohibits action. There are plenty of cards show why it is better to permit all action then allow for moral deliberation. Second I agree that judges might be more open to hearing substantive arguments why skep would negate, but layering the debate does some things that would be beneficial, it would allow you to easily win without having to win that skep is true. Also most rounds that are decided on permissibility aren't the only topic of discussion in round. In fact, I would venture to say that the reason why judges are more likely to vote on things like permissibility and presumption are because they are a large part of the round exploited in a small amount of time. Third- You are completely right, running skep would be dependent on the person in the back of the room. Finally- Running an argument at the TOC is different than doing well running an argument at the TOC. From my experience I have never seen skep positions doing extremely well at tournaments. Things like permissibility on the other hand have, i.e. the TOC runoff round between Greenhill RK and Dulles AK. Amyn had been running similar positions all year, and in fact won state running similar arguments.
  • Create New...