2010 Spring UIL

[travisF.]

for morality the only way to truly run morality is to understand it. Many people will run morality without actually understanding the philosophers they are attempting to use. I personally have found only universal types of morality work as a value (that avoids the subjectivity argument) but then you end up having to talk about kantian philosophies, and in order to do that one must actually read kant which is extremely complex. I suggest not using morality and to find a less philosophically complex value (i.e sanctity of life)

Also the argument that humans just by there very nature are anthropocentric and thus anthropocentric will always be valued no matter what is a great argument that has won a lot of rounds. I highly suggest using it.

[Olivia]

1: I never said a "moral" agent. i said an agent. You'd be forced to have the framework that says the since humans are the ones that are going to be determining whether or not they have an obligation. Because if you fail to do so, it'd be extremely easy for the negative to say that there is no agent so you'd look to the neg case for X reasons because it's a more advantageous view.

2: Yeah i understand this, i'd argue that i don't see the benefits that come out of something that is obviously occuring now. If the negative lays the burden of the aff proving what "ought be" not what is, this means you're supposed to figure out what is the most advantageous view of the world, not just say what the view of the world we have now is. this isn't a question of justification imo. besides, the negative im planning on running this week has a much bigger impact scenario then that of the obligation case.

3: awwww you should learn what a perm is. people don't call it this in rounds, but its pretty much just when somebody steals your offense by saying there's no reason they can't do it too.

4th: hmm perhaps this might work, but you have to realize that you can't escape the links the negative has through the status quo.


5th answer-- it's not the question of whether anthropocentrism is fair, is the question of whether or not YOU are fair. you try to escape all real world implications (as i said earlier) of anthropocentrism by saying that everything is centered around itself. but this still doesn't show why we SHOULD focus on ourself, because all these bad things seem to stem from it because we're the only beings that can cause real harm by being centered around ourselves. this doesn't make sense but im tired and don't wanna rewrite it haha but and the very fact that you don't really give the negative any ground whatsoever seems potentially problematic.

so i guess my only problem with the case is pretty much theory. im not much of a fan of truth testing, which is entirely what this case is. no question of morality or preferability or anything. i'd pretty much run a theory shell against you... but i doubt i'll debate you so its all good. hahah

So anyways, yea i do PF and LD, what school are you from?

Reagan. if i had to guess i'd assume that you're from LV, that is, if you're actually in my area.

[JMessmer]

oh, in that case i use perms too...ugh i dont feel up to responding to all those, ill do it later rofl...its been like 3 weeks so im not in the zone on this one.

yea im from La Vernia. won district in LD, going to regionals XD LV took 1, 2 and 3 and I placed One XD

hmm...Olivia from Reagan...IDK if weve met.

[LCM..LD..GOD]

Perm- Permutation: a “do both” scenario…i.e. Do both the affs plan/position and the negs counter advocacy/plan, either at the same time or the aff first...easyest was to beat a counter plan