Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Barrington SN | Judge: Doug Ulene
I Affirm,
In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Part 1 is Analysis.

1) Compulsory Voting is a misnomer.
Justine Lacroix 07 (Justine Lacroix is Professor in the Department of Politics at the Universitélibre de Bruxelles. She is the author of Walzer. Le pluralisme et l’universel (Michalon, 2001) ;Communautarisme versus libéralisme (ULB, 2003) ; La penséefrançaise à l’épreuve de l’Europe (Grasset, 2008). ) 2007The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association POLITICS: 2007 VOL 27(3). Accessed 9/18/13. url: http://www.sciencespo.site.ulb.ac.be/dossiers_membres/lacroix-justine/fichiers/lacroix-justine-publication231.pdf

Part 2 is Meta-Ethics.

Cognitivism is the only logically consistent meta-ethic accessible to debate. Moral statements must be apt for truth or falsity – if not, then moral reasoning is impossible because each line of reason would be independent of each other line, creating eternal regression.

Van Roojen, Mark, "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/moral-cognitivism/.

The task is difficult in virtue of two interrelated considerations (1). In many
AND
moral sentences so as not to commit a fallacy of equivocationin making arguments.
AND Van Roojen 2
A recent objection to non-cognitivism pays close attention to the distinction between explaining
AND
this strategy can be made to work is as yet an open question.
Thus, any non-cognitivist ethic must be rejected because it isn’t compatible with debate.
AND
Naturalism is false, because moral theories must be justified before existence. Else is a combination of two fallacies: ONE, is/ought fallacy because naturalism presupposes what is moral based off of what is, not necessarily off what ought; TWO, circular logic, because naturalism relies on a presupposition of naturalistic logic, to objectively show it would require non-naturalism.
AND
Normative moral theories face an epistemological fallacy – once taken out of the abstract, moral claims differ infinitely in the context of the situation.
Stelzig 98– B.A (Tim, March, “COMMENT: DEONTOLOGY, GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTIVE EXEMPTION: HOW THE TROLLEY PROBLEM SHAPES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS AND POLICY”, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 901, Lexis Law, S) From http://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=70andt=35093
Thus, moral subjectivity is contradictory, because it subjectively assumes an objective statement that morality cannot be objective. It would be nonsensical to make a law declaring there are no laws.
AND
For there to exist an obligation derivative from morality, it must motivate action.
Rosati, Connie S., "Moral Motivation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moral-motivation/.
Motivational judgment internalism, hereafter “internalism,” holds that a person one
AND
motivation, at least in the “good and strong-willed person.”
If this is not true, then ONE, there is no link from action to morality, as people would simply shrug off morality because they have overriding desires.  TWO, motivational externalism would render any attempt at normative descriptions which uses reason and logic useless and unjustifiable because any agent could act with arbitrary intentions with arbitrary reasons.

Part 3 is the Original Position.

The Originial Position is the only theory that avoids the naturalistic fallacy while still being cognitively valid. People remove themselves from their vested interests and subjective claims.

Freeman, Samuel, "Original Position", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring2012Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/original-position/.
In addition to expressing our autonomy, the original position is also objective (TJ
AND
also all temporal points of view” (TJ, 587/514).
AND
 Rawls, John.(Professor of philosophy at Harvard) A Theory of Justice.  1971.

In justice as fairness, the original position of equality corresponds to the state of
AND
are autonomous and the obligations they recognized self-imposed.

The veil of ignorance uniquely conforms.

 Piccard, Dick (Professor at Ohio University) Published: 4/4/2005 Accessed 8/18/13. url: http://www.ohio.edu/people/piccard/entropy/rawls.html

The Veil of Ignorance: Rawls supposes that a (virtual) committee of rational
AND
reasoning without personal biases Rawls refers to as "The Veil of Ignorance."

Thus the standard for the round is consistency with principles decided in the original position.  All contentions must directly link into ethical decisions made under the veil of ignorance by rational actors.
Thus the Affirmative Burden is to show that rational actors under the veil of ignorance would make voting compulsory. The negative has the reciprocal burden.

Part 4 is the Advocacy.

I contend that rational policymakers in the original position would make voting compulsory for three reasons.

FIRST, Universal Voting is implied by the Original Position
Everyone votes and participates in the OP, by its very definition, so all should vote in real life.
Norman Daniels 2002 Harvard Philosopher “ Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism. Published2002 Accessed 9/19/13 url: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benchmark/ndaniels/pdf/democratic_equality.pdf

Because of their interest in recognitional equality, when contractors choose principles they must assure
AND
idea about the social bases of self respect, with its echo of Rousseau

SECOND,CV is needed to prevent inequalities
Jan Rovensky2013“Voting: A Citizen’s Right, or Duty? The Case against Compulsory Voting” Her Ph.D. thesis which got her Ph.D. in PoliSci. Published: 2007 – 2008. Last Modified: 07 Mar 2013 22:54 Accessed: 9/9/13. url: http://eprints.luiss.it/40/1/rovensky-20080728.pdf?
AND
CV raises minority turnout.
Harvard Law Review 2007 (See Arend Lijphart, Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma, 91 AM. POL.SCI REV. 1, 8–9 (1997) (providing a review of the empirical literature on the effects of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout); see also Hasen, supra note 6, at 2171.)) Accessed 9/19/13 url: http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/compulsory_voting.pdf
One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters
AND
of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting
AND
Every moment without CV worsens the problem
Rovensky 2?
Apart from these consequences the proponents of compulsory voting point out that there are three
AND
Power Inquiry (2006: 42) dubbed it, a ‘quiet authoritarianism’
AND
John M. Carey13YusakuHoriuchi. Professor in the Social Sciences, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Associate Professor and Mitsui Chair in the Study of Japan, Department of Government, Dartmouth College Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality. Last Updated: April 22, 2013.Accessed: 9/19/13.url: http://sites.dartmouth.edu/jcarey/files/2013/04/HoriuchiCarey201304221.pdf
What difference does it make if more, or fewer, people vote? What
AND
, in turn, contributes to the equality of influence.
Thus, in the original position compulsory voting would be rendered morally valid because a rational actor would never decide to act in a method contrary to their interests.  Absent the contextual information about inequalities, the privileged and the uneducated would both affirm their desire for enfranchisement – thus you affirm.
THIRD,
FOURTH CV prevents minority disenfranchisement
Voter ID Laws disenfranchise minorities
Matt A. Barreto 07 University of Washington Stephen A. Nuño University of California, Irvine Gabriel R. Sanchez University of New Mexico. “VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENTS OF LATINO, BLACK AND ASIAN VOTERS” Prepared for presentation at: 2007 American Political Science Association Annual Conference September 1, 2007. Accessed: 9/19/13.url: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/research/Voter_ID_APSA.pdf
Specifically, through the use of a unique dataset from the 2006 elections, we
AND
access to multiple forms of identification are significantly more likely to vote Democrat….
Kriz 13 continues
Ellen Kriz(northeast ohio coalition for the homeless)“NEW VOTING LAWS DISENFRANCHISE MINORITIES AND HOMELESS”  Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 2:48PM. Accessed 9/19/13. http://www.neoch.org/chronicle193-articles/2013/5/23/new-voting-laws-disenfranchise-minorities-and-homeless.html

The homeless populations in particular will experience more difficulty voting than ever if these laws
AND
that minorities and the poor deserve to be fairly represented in a true democracy
AND
Empirically verified.  Lee 2012 reports
Trymaine Lee 2012 (huffingtonpost. Study = Black Youth Project, nonpartisan, nonprofit). “Voter ID Laws Could Disenfranchise 1 Million Young Minority Voters: Study“Posted: 09/12/2012 7:57 pm EDT Updated: 09/13/2012 Accessed: 9/19/13 url: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/voter-id-laws-minorities_n_1878893.html

An estimated 700,000 Seven hundred thousand young minority voters could be
AND
organization that aims to increase civic engagement and voter participation among minority youth.

Disenfranchised voters and citizens with current suffrage would both reach the same conclusion in the original position because no voter would act against their interests by rejecting suffrage.

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Leucadia Independent SW | Judge: Placido
I affirm ~Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.~
?

Part One is Analysis

Observation 1: The word "Ought" is universally accepted in debate and linguistics as a moral statement of normativity, thus the Aff will accept any definition that meets that description.

Observation 2:  Epistemology meets the concept of "ought" as it facilitates our description of ontology, meaning that justifications linking back to epistemology qualify as ontological statements.  I can still play football without an explicit reason, even if my teammates do it for scholarships, fun, or as a workout

Observation 3: Arguments that construct normative or absolute statements of valid epistemology are sufficient to render those claims universalizable because they would pass the threshold of what is normatively sound.?

Part Two is the Framework

Epistemology is the understanding of knowledge which precludes any ontological or normative statement of value – in order to say why I like cake, I have to be able to like cake in the first place.  Additionally, we must be able to describe our understanding of things as end-statements, else they are not sound concepts at all.

Falcon 12, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/aristotle-causality/.
In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle places ~there is~ the following crucial condition
AND
been developed primarily (but not exclusively) for the study of nature.
This shapes our ability to discuss statements of value like deontology or util.  Thus, our discursive framing of the resolution must be epistemologically sound in order to be coherent for debate. And considering substance thus becomes a role of the ballot, as by debating, we assume the job of the student of nature. This comes before theory.
Falcon 2
In the Physics, Aristotle builds on his general account of the four causes by
AND
an opponent who denies that final causality is a genuine mode of causality.
Under a cognitivist framework, Epistemology is the only ethic that is capable of describing every internal cause behind every action or idea – other ethics collapse into coincidence.  A utility calculus is insufficient because it’s only concerned with one part of the process.
Falcon 3
The difficulty that Aristotle discusses is introduced by considering the way in which rain works
AND
while at the same time he emphasizes their dependency upon a specific end.
AND
Falcon 4
Significantly enough, there is no attempt to argue for the existence of four fundamental
AND
the efficient cause, see Code 1997, pp. 127–143.)
Thus the Value is Consistency with the Epistemological Nature of Things.
The resolution contextualizes our discussion to the United States Criminal Justice system, which helps
AND
-body, meaning that the United States would be sufficient specification anyway.  
Thus, the Criterion is Consistency with the Nature of the United States Criminal Justice System.
The affirmative has the burden to prove that the nature of the USCJ demands that truth-seeking be valued above attorney-client privilege.  The Negative has the reciprocal burden.

Part Three is Offense

I contend that truth seeking is most consistent with the nature of the Criminal Justice System for two reasons.

One, obviously, the purpose of the USCJ is to deliver justice to those who deserve it.
Charles Wellford (University of Maryland at College Park) Two Goals of Criminal Justice, Dec 1997
It has been understood that a criminal justice system has two primary and possible conflicting
AND
recent years have emphasized the role the justice system plays in reducing crime.
The AC does not defend why one or who deserves justice, or how it
AND
take a lower priority than the end goal: justice through truth seeking.
Two, ACP is itself not an end. No criminal justice system exists solely to afford a privilege and nothing further. It is a means, and its end/formal cause is justice vis-à-vis truth-seeking. Even if you accept ACP as the greatest things ever, it still would be ridiculous to prefer a means over the end towards which the means is a means.
Three, ACP itself derives from legal doctrine, such as the 5^th Amendment. These things are not of the

Tournament: NSD | Round: 4 | Opponent: some | Judge: some
Freedom at 21 by Jack White

Part 1 is Observations

Reparation should be focused on black Americans. By its nature it is not about assuaging white guilt or being easy for society. Rather, it is about acknowledging a past wrong and taking action towards repairing whatever gaps may exist from past actions. This means we focus on the needs and differences of black Americans
Reparations require a positive action stemming from the intent to ease the disadvantaged group back to a better position to produce and act independently in the society. 

Part 2 is Meta-Ethics

Cognitivism is the only logically consistent meta-ethic accessible to debate. Moral statements must be apt for truth or falsity – if not, then moral reasoning is impossible because each line of reason would be independent of each other line, creating eternal regression.

Van Roojen, Mark, "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/moral-cognitivism/.
A recent objection to non-cognitivism pays close attention to the distinction between explaining
AND
this strategy can be made to work is as yet an open question.
Thus, any non-cognitivist ethic must be rejected because it isn’t compatible with debate.
AND
Naturalism is false, because moral theories must be justified before existence. Else is a combination of two fallacies: ONE, is/ought fallacy because naturalism presupposes what is moral based off of what is, not necessarily off what ought; TWO, circular logic, because naturalism relies on a presupposition of naturalistic logic, to objectively show it would require non-naturalism.
AND
Normative moral theories face an epistemological fallacy – once taken out of the abstract, moral claims differ infinitely in the context of the situation.
Stelzig 98– B.A (Tim, March, "COMMENT: DEONTOLOGY, GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTIVE EXEMPTION: HOW THE TROLLEY PROBLEM SHAPES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS AND POLICY", 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 901, Lexis Law, S)Fromhttp://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7026t=35093

Take first the epistemological problem. Every view of morality must ultimately give some account of how it is that we come to know what is right. An otherwise impressive moral metaphysics is pointless if epistemologically implausible. 103 With general norms, it is plausible that we may come to learn them gradually, refining our understanding through practice. Naturalistically learning through practice, however, is foreclosed to one who sees deontology as both pervasive and particularist. Almost every situation is morally different from the rest, even if only slightly so. If deontology is exhaustive of morality, there must be a separate injunction for each situation. The epistemological~*922~ problem is that learning an essentially infinite number of separate rules to govern our conduct is implausible. It initially might be thought that the epistemological problem could be overcome by allowing generality within the specific norms, thus making it possible for the student of morality to learn these general principles and then derive the specific deontological prohibitions from them. The trouble with this response is that the important theoretic work is performed by the underlying principles by which the specific deontological maxims can be learned. This is problematic because theoretic entities are abstract. As such, Ockham’s Razor 104 and the principles of pragmatism 105 dictate that we do better to recognize conceptually the general principles. There is no logical inconsistency in positing a deontological norm for every morally distinct situation. But if pervasive, deontological maxims would be superfluous. Thus, it is theoretically preferable to deny them this exclusivity. 106 Suppose the epistemological problem can be skirted by allowing that some theoretically benign generality informs our moral understanding. If deontology may be exhaustive without being particularist, then a separate objection, the conflicts problem, arises. As was true of the epistemological problem, the conflicts problem arises because morality has something to say about almost everything. Because the world is complex, if rights are general, then the evaluation of most morally interesting situations will either depend on more than one rights claim or on some other moral element, each problematic for the claim that deontology is exhaustive of morality. The reason is structural. Our moral intuitions are highly nuanced – often minor changes to a factual situation alter the normative evaluation of that situation. But since a limited number of general norms, because they are general, cannot account for this contextual sensitiv ~*923~ ity, some other explanation must be offered. Positing a greater number of more specific deontological norms could account for this factual sensitivity. Doing so, however, threatens to reincarnate the epistemological problem. If our norms are relatively few in number, thereby putting them within our epistemic reach, either many norms will apply to each situation to give us the contextual sensitivity that is evident, or someother principles must be at work.
Thus, moral subjectivity is contradictory, because it subjectively assumes an objective statement that morality cannot be objective. It would be nonsensical to make a law declaring there are no laws.
AND
For there to exist an obligation derivative from morality, it must motivate action.
Rosati, Connie S., "Moral Motivation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moral-motivation/.
Motivational judgment internalism, hereafter "internalism," holds that a person ~one~
AND
motivation, at least in the "good and strong-willed person."
If this is not true, then ONE, there is no link from action to morality, as people would simply shrug off morality because they have overriding desires.  TWO, motivational externalism would render any attempt at normative descriptions which uses reason and logic useless and unjustifiable because any agent could act with arbitrary reasons.

Part 3 is the Original Position.

The Original Position is the only theory that avoids the naturalistic fallacy while still being cognitively valid. People remove themselves from their vested interests and subjective claims.

Freeman, Samuel, "Original Position", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring2012Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/original-position/.
In addition to expressing our autonomy,the original position is also objective (TJ
AND
also all temporal points of view" (TJ, 587/514).
AND Under the original position, we don’t risk other peoples’ rights, because they might be our own, this is the difference principle.
Wenar  , Leif Wenar—2008 ~Professor of philosophy at University of Sheffield~, "John Rawls" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 26.

Part 4 is the Advocacy

Black Americans today are the worst-off, and dating back to times of slavery, blacks not only were exploited, but had their future opportunity and ability to work spoiled. This has caused irreparable damage that can’t be fixed in the status quo, and continues to hinder black Americans on average. This means without reparation, problems follow a vicious cycle.

Brewer 02Meizhu Lui is the Executive Director of United for a Fair Economy. She can be reached at mlui@faireconomy.org. Rose Brewer is Associate Professor of African American 26 African Studies at the University of Minnesota. She can be reached at brewe001@maroon.tc.umn.edu. They are co-authors of a forthcoming book on the racial wealth gap. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0329-06.htm

Tobacco firms used slaves in the harvest. Southern utilities used slaves to construct oil
AND
can and should adopt fair rules to redress the injustice of the past.

Further, because there is no inherent difference between a black and white person,
AND
are even more skewed in poorer settings*. Seccombe elaborates on this asymmetry:

Mike Seccombe Poverty and Failure of Education System Weigh on Black http://mvgazette.com/news/2011/08/22/poverty-and-failure-education-system-weigh-black-students?k=vg53cc8b503338626r=1~~23sthash.sYMhiP9G.dpuf

Professor Gates .., incarcerated, or dead." 

Thiresolution. 

More still, even if just distributions are determined by just transitions from a just
AND
system, the government has a positive duty to ensure equality of opportunity. 

These first two arguments clearly show that the affirmative meets aims of the resolution,
AND
way to act on it; the contrapositive is not valid

So, increasing the priority of primary education for poorer black Americans would count as
AND
can learn independence and self –respect, then structural change is impossible.

Du Bois W.E.B. The Training of Negroes for Social Power 

The responsibility for their own social regeneration ought to be placed largely upon the shoulders
AND
inevitably lead to an independent manhood which cannot and will not rest in bonds

Finally, these programs specifically solve by not just dispelling ignorance but also by helping everybody in society see blacks as people rather than a race.

Ronald Dworkin, Bakke’s Case: Are Quotas Unfair? 1977 Harvard University Press

According to the 1970 census, only 2.1 percent of US doctors were
AND
, for now, is likely to mean little or nothing for them.

So the AC controls the internal link to polls and such because a) we first have to understand agency b) opinions cant be properly known  unless there are educated enough

So this controls the internal link to finding self because only aff world and education can accomplish that, and also advantages through by decreasing race consciousness. 

*~http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_48.htm~~ Jay P. Greene, Ph.D., is Endowed Chair and Head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His education research has been cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and has appeared in scholarly and popular publications. Dr. Greene received his doctorate in political science from Harvard University in 1995. April 2006 Civic Report

Tournament: VBT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Thomas Phung | Judge: Hiyaw Solomon
The affirmative has the textual burden of proving that environmental protection is more important than
AND
the other – not just equal – in order to win the round.
Developing Country is defined as any country which is of the want of or is
AND
simply reevaluate my advocacy under it. This solves for aff’s speaking blindly.

Part 2 is Meta-Ethics

Cognitivism is the only logically consistent meta-ethic accessible to debate. Moral statements must be apt for truth or falsity – if not, then moral reasoning is impossible because each line of reason would be independent of each other line, creating eternal regression.

Van Roojen, Mark, "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/moral-cognitivism/.

The task is difficult in virtue of two interrelated considerations (1). In many
AND
moral sentences so as not to commit a fallacy of equivocationin making arguments.
AND van Roojen 2
A recent objection to non-cognitivism pays close attention to the distinction between explaining
AND
this strategy can be made to work is as yet an open question.
Thus, any non-cognitivist ethic must be rejected because it isn’t compatible with debate.
AND
Naturalism is false, because moral theories must be justified before existence. Else is a combination of two fallacies: ONE, is/ought fallacy because naturalism presupposes what is moral based off of what is, not necessarily off what ought; TWO, circular logic, because naturalism relies on a presupposition of naturalistic logic, to objectively show it would require non-naturalism.
AND
Normative moral theories face an epistemological fallacy – once taken out of the abstract, moral claims differ infinitely in the context of the situation.
Stelzig 98– B.A (Tim, March, "COMMENT: DEONTOLOGY, GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTIVE EXEMPTION: HOW THE TROLLEY PROBLEM SHAPES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIGHTS AND POLICY", 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 901, Lexis Law, S)Fromhttp://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7026t=35093

Take first the epistemological problem. …
 someother principles must be at work.
Thus, moral subjectivity is contradictory, because it subjectively assumes an objective statement that morality cannot be objective. It would be nonsensical to make a law declaring there are no laws.
AND
For there to exist an obligation derivative from morality, it must motivate action.
Rosati, Connie S., "Moral Motivation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moral-motivation/.
Motivational judgment internalism, hereafter "internalism," holds that a person ~one~
AND
motivation, at least in the "good and strong-willed person."
If this is not true, then ONE, there is no link from action to morality, as people would simply shrug off morality because they have overriding desires.  TWO, motivational externalism would render any attempt at normative descriptions which uses reason and logic useless and unjustifiable because any agent could act with arbitrary reasons.

Part 3 is the Original Position.

The Original Position is the only theory that avoids the naturalistic fallacy while still being cognitively valid. People remove themselves from their vested interests and subjective claims.

Freeman, Samuel, "Original Position", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring2012Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/original-position/.
In addition to expressing our autonomy,the original position is also objective (TJ
AND
also all temporal points of view" (TJ, 587/514).
AND
 Rawls, John.(Professor of philosophy at Harvard) A Theory of Justice.  1971.

In justice as fairness,the original position of equalitycorresponds to the state of nature
AND
are autonomous and the obligations they recognize~d~ self-imposed.

Thus the standard for the round is consistency with principles decided in the original position.  

AND, reject negative dumps and grouping on Rawls without direct attacks to each author in the meta-ethic.  Even if they claim to prove that the OP is bad or not preferable, my meta-ethical framework proves that it is the only functional framework anyway.

Part 4 is the Advocacy

Contention One:
Under the OP, environmental protection is necessary to mitigate harms to future generations.
AND
environment, by pushing off harm into the future for resource extraction today.

Extraction over protection ensures terminal future harms.

Anne Ehrlich 26 Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology and Senior Research Scientist at Stanford, 1/9/13 (Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?,Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280)

But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization—the worldwide
AND
or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use ~26~ 

AND the fatal harms are empirically verified. 

Mindjov, Kliment "Our Responsibilities Towards Future Generations" n.d.

Easter Island is located in the Pacific Ocean, about 3,200 kilometres west
AND
was revived, and some people even became cannibals in order to survive.

AND resource extraction does not help developing countries; it only hurts them, and increases poverty, thus offense under the OP in current time. Four reasons:

Thorvaldur 2000 Natural Resources, Education and Economic Development
Thorvaldur Gylfason, University of Iceland, October 2000
https://notendur.hi.is//~~gylfason/pdf/dp2594.pdf

Four main channels of transmission from abundant natural resoures to sluggish economic growth are discussed
AND
Their natural wealth may blind them to the need for educating their children.

AND there cannot be any sort of long-term resource extraction without some level
AND
also because the risk of decreasing carrying capacity has higher risk in alternate scenarios 

Part 5 is the Underview

Pretty much neg has to concede rvis and clash stds, also cx checks, neg has to have 1 post fiat advocacy and i get presumption

Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Scarsdale TC | Judge: Fred Ditzian
Because that we debate in order to see who’s better implies there is some understanding
AND
day, we’re just high schoolers talking about justifying debate rules really fast.
Absurdism means only valuing things necessary for the absurd life and being able to value things. Camus1 defines rebellion:
Albert Camus, The Rebel, 1951, Part 1: "The Rebel" (all other Camus cards from here too)
What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal does
AND
of right not to be oppressed beyond the limit that he can tolerate."
This means freedom is always good, and always the highest value, because only by exerting our freedom through rebellion can we both have dignity and have other values. Freedom and its struggle is a notional value a priori to any other value, or even life itself. Camus 2
Values, according to good authorities, "most often represent a transition from facts
AND
even the man who insults and oppresses him—have a natural community.
This means that nobody can act in such a way that he violates the tenets necessary for absurdist freedom by rebellion. Rebellion demands the acknowledgment of a human solidarity which is inviolable, and is necessary in order to have any other value. Camus 3
We have already noted the confused values that are called into play by incipient rebellion
AND
first value on the whole human race. I rebel—therefore we exist
Thus, the standard of the round is preserving an absurdist notion of freedom.
AND
, this has to be the basis for all our judgments. Camus 4
Thus God is useless, since He wants nothing in particular. If He wanted
AND
exist; and this world cannot be judged in the name of nothing.

I contend this means affirmation because

Negating is logically contradictory. Property is a universal prerequisite to effective freedom because it
AND
not just undermine freedom, it is also self-contradictory.  Ataner:
We can also make our point with a series of questions: If "~f
AND
conclusion, and must, at least from a Kantian perspective, be rejected
Independent of the logical consistency arg, you still affirm because it’s been empirically observed that extraction without environmental protection coerces people, who are part of the environment. In less-industrialized countries, mining-induced displacement occurs frequently and is caused by resource extraction. Terminski 1
"Applying the Concept of Human Security to Research on the Consequences of Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement;" (March 13th, 2012); University of Warsaw, Mining Displacement: PDF
Asia and Pacific: Among the countries of the region with a significant scale of
AND
, as mineral extraction remained a key economic driver in the whole region".

Displacement is coercive, crossing the fundamental line of absurdist freedom in many ways. Environmental constraints solve. Terminski 2

Human rights studies: The domain of human rights provides us with another analytical tool
AND
not have any impact on the local national or regional socio-economic development
These groups rebel explicitly for protection go to affirm their existences and deny their opposition. These acts of rebellion are what give meaning to life by rejecting masters and death. Camus 5 concludes
This description can be applied, word for word, to the metaphysical rebel.
AND
, denouncing God as the father of death and as the supreme outrage.

Tournament: asu | Round: 1 | Opponent: many | Judge: many

Part 1 is Observations

I defend the resolution as a general principle. Insofar as the resolutional conflict is a choice between two values, there is no reason for implementation
Sustainablity is aff ground because it restricts extraction for environmental protection
Developing Country is defined as any country which is of the want of or is attempting to expand its influence. Prefer this definition because the alternative definition of Developing Country as poor or similar descriptions breeds imperialism and oppression because it implies that a country is lesser if it does not conform to a Western model of development.
T is not a voter, if aff loses a definition simply reevaluate my advocacy under it, solving for aff’s speaking blindly.

Part 2 is Framework

I value moral action. Only a constitutivist account of moral motivation provides agents with non-optional reasons for acting, stressing agency.

Katsafanas, Paul. "Deriving Ethics from Action: A Nietzchean Version of Constitutivism." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC.  Boston University: 2011.

Enter a third theory, which attempts to do just that: constitutivism. According
AND
reasons for action that arise merely from the fact that one is an agent

This agency is unescapable, and is the basis for moral action. Two warrants:
One, 

Luca Ferrero, "Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency". Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. IV, Jan 12, 2009.(https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ferrero/www/pubs/ferrero-constitutivism.pdf?)Professor of Philosophy, University of Wesconsin at Milwaukee

The initial appeal of the shmagency objection rests on the impression that there is a
AND
. This is the kind of nonoptionality that supports the viability of constitutivism.

AND Two, Rational Agency contains the idea that one is the cause of her actions

CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard, "SELF-CONSTITUTION IN THE ETHICS OF PLATO AND KANT". The Journal of Ethics 1999, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 1-29. Specifically, "VII. GOOD ACTION AND THE UNITY OF THE KANTIAN WILL".  Professor of Philosphy, Harvard University.

Now I’m going to argue that that sort of willing is impossible. The first
AND
, then, requires identification with the principle of choice on which you act

AND rational agents cannot act on an individual maxim that hinders the freedom of others, as that is non-universalizable.

Stephen Engstrom , "Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge". (www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsemengstrom_vortrag.pdf?)

Given the preceding considerations, it’s a straightforward matter to see how a maxim of
AND
a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom.

Thus, the standard is preserving a system of equal freedom.
An theoretical justification. Any Neg attempt to challenge or provide alternative framing concedes the primacy of this because his autonomy, agency, and freedom in this round allowed him to do so.

Thus you vote aff if it can be shown that extraction over environmental protection harms a system of equal freedom

Part 3 is Offense

Freedom is self-limiting in nature, and coercion is legitimate against actions that hinder freedom. ATANER 1

(all cards from here) KANT ON FREEDOM, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. ATTILA ATANER, B.A., J.D. McMaster University MASTER OF ARTS (2012) Hamilton, Ontario (Philosophy). 

The  upshot  of  Kant’s  Universal  Principle  of  Right  is  that  there  are  inherent restrictions  placed  
AND
bodily  integrity  or  proprietary holdings) of – any other person in particular.

Property is not a object; it is an inter-personal relation with respect to an object, where the owner wills his end over the complacent object to further exercise his freedom on the world. This shows the self-limiting nature of freedom, happening with persons’ mutual restraint not to violate another’s object. However, one does not have the freedom to destroy objects.
ATANER 2

Put differently, suppose we grant owners the full, unadulterated right to absolutely destroy
AND
position when it comes to land  in particular, which I discuss below.)

Further, to destroy objects and resources is contradictory. This means it harms systems of equal freedom. Therefore, environmental protection is justified coercion, hindering a hinderance. ATANER 3

Now,  at  this  stage  I  reiterate  my  basic  claim,  per  the  environmentalist  agenda
AND
, and must, at least from a Kantian perspective, be rejected.

At our current rate, the future will be out of resources. Ataner 4

The second, perhaps all too obvious observation to be made in connection with the
AND
is "their" resources that will have been made unavailable to them).

Part 4 is Underview

Same underview. Changed some stuff to interps though

Tournament: local | Round: 1 | Opponent: some | Judge: some

NOTE I hated running this (especially extinction) so I probs will never run any of this stuff ever again

I affirm.
~Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege.~

Part 1 is Observations

The word "Ought" is universally defined as a moral statement of normativity, meaning the resolution is a moral question.  This means that in order to affirm or negate the resolution, debaters must frame what morality is, and subsequently prove if it is or is not moral to prioritize truth-seeking over attorney-client privilege.
While the resolution doesn’t explicitly specify that attorney-client privilege and truth-seeking are mutually exclusive, it would not make sense to conclude that both are equally valuable or can function without one another because that would make our discussion either irrelevant or intrinsically false.  Thus, either debater must prove that one concept is superior to the other – not just equal – in order to win the round.
I define the United States Criminal Justice system as the legal entity that exists in the United States which seeks to resolve criminal and civil trials.  

Part 2 is the Framework

The value is morality as proscribed by the resolution, defined as the ethical guidelines that constrain action.  In determining if we "ought" to do something, morality must take the form of a universal law, consistent in all similar scenarios.  Peter Singer explains:

~Peter Singer (Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton), "The Groundwork of Utilitarian Morals: Reconsidering Hare’s Argument for Utilitarianism," draft prepared for the Conference on Issues in Modern Philosophy: "The Foundations of Morality," NYU Philosophy Department, November 7, 2009, Pgs. 3?4.~

When I prescribe ~an action~something, using moral language, my prescription
AND
liv~ing~e the lives of all those affectedby the action.

The only universalizable ethical actions are utilitarian, and everything ultimately devolves to util.  Singer II continues:

~Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 13-14~

The universal aspect of ethics, I suggest, does provide~s~ a
AND
the course of action most likely to maximize the interests of those affected.

Thus, the Criterion is Utilitarianism.

Also, Util is true – two independent warrants:

A. Util. is the only moral theory that makes sense. We only care about the consequence of an action not the intent. We would not think killing an innocent person is bad if it ended in something good. We think killing is bad because the consequence is death.
B. Consequentialism treats all people as equal by weighing them equally in a utility calculus. They have the burden to prove that people are inequal to disprove util.

Part 3 is Offense

I contend that valuing truth-seeking over ACP helps decrease terrorism.
Right now, terrorism is on the rise, despite the lack of Al-Qaeda in the headlines.  An Economist article from October 4^th explains:

Economist. "Al-Qaeda Returns: The New Face of Terror." The Economist (28 Sept. 2013): n. pag. The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
Mr Obama might argue that the assault on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi by
AND
The terrorist network now holds sway over more territory and is recruiting more fighters
than at any time in its 25-year history (see article). Mr Obama must reconsider.

Perhaps the greatest unseen reason why the next 9/11 hasn’t happened is because of the preventative information gathered from detained and arrested terrorists and affiliates.  Much of this information is gathered through what would be considered a violation of ACP.  
An expansion of these policies would continue to prevent terrorism, but that requires an affirmative ballot because of the obstacles ACP creates in the truth-seeking process.

Paul Rice.  "Is the War on Terrorism a War on Attorney-Client Privilege?" Criminal Justice Magazine.Summer 2002.American Bar Association.

Two reasons seem to have motivated Attorney General Ashcroft’s decision to monitor suspect Inmates’ communications
AND
inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.

The Department of Justice is aware of these methods, but currently their hands are tied in trying these terrorists in court.

DOJ DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT: PRESERVING OUR FREEDOMS WHILE DEFENDING AGAINST TERRORISM U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81-998 WASHINGTON: 2002

The terrorist enemy that threatens civilization today is unlike any we have ever known.
AND
of mastering the art of hiding messages is self-evident here.’’ 

However, the monitored conversations can result in information necessary to prevent the formation of terrorist attacks.  Lawyers carrying information have been indicted, but more importantly, future acts of terror have been averted.

_KatherineRuzenski_{, J.D. Candidate, St. John’s University, June 2005, NOTE: BALANCING FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE NEED FOR INCREASED HOMELAND SECURITY: THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11THMuch like drug-kingpins, and mob consiglieres},

Lynne Stewart, a New York criminal defense attorney, was indicted on April 8
AND
, resulting in a possible sentence of up to 40 years in prison.

AND the Bureau of Prisons maintains that these policies are an essential condition to prevent terrorism.

Katherine Ruzenski 2, J.D. Candidate, St. John’s University, June 2005, NOTE: BALANCING FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE NEED FOR INCREASED HOMELAND SECURITY: THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11THMuch like drug-kingpins, and mob consiglieres,

However, the USA Patriot Act and subsequent legislation, such as the Bureau of
AND
contact and involvement with their terrorist friends who have not yet been caught.  

Terrorism is the paramount risk in America because of the high magnitude and prevalent risk that Al-Qaeda or similar terrorist groups acquire a nuclear weapon in an increasingly unstable world.  Dennis Morgan writes:

Morgan, Dennis Ray, "World on Fire: Two Scenarios of the Destruction of Human Civilization and Possible Extinction of the Human Race," 2009

In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ’’Is
AND
, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.

In virtually every nuclear scenario, human extinction is likely if not inevitable.  This bears a huge risk to the existence of humans as a whole – not just American citizens.  Jorge Hirsh explains:

November 21, 2005 Jorge Hirsh – physics professor, Ph.D., University of Chicago.  "Can A Nuclear Strike on Iran be Prevented?" http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8089

However, even in the best-case scenario, thelong-term consequences are
AND
of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth’s population many times over. 

This outweighs every other impact, especially ones that observe a chilling effect or marginal
AND
must prevent any and all cases of existential risk; Nick Bostrom concludes:

Nick Bostrom. Faculty of Philosophy and Oxford Martin School University of Oxford; Generally Crazy Person but not this argument because it’s actually pretty sane."Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority." Global Policy (2012)

These reflections onmoral uncertainty suggest~s~ an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate.
Our present understanding of axiology might well be~is~ confused. We may
AND
of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe.

Part Four is the Underview

Same underview