Tournament: UVU | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

I AFFIRM (Because what else would I be doing?)

The VALUE for the round is MORALITY.
Prefer Morality for 3 reasons
The vast majority of philosophical authors talk about their ideas in terms of evaluating the morality of a situation, and since LD is based in philosophy, Morality is the best thing to try and achieve in the round.
Morality is the most fair value because every advantage either NEG or AFF can claim to be moral, allowing for debaters to have equal ground in value debate.
Morality is also the easiest value to try and conform to in a round, both because of how often it is run and because of how objective it is, making it the most predictably fair value in the round.

Next, Utilitarianism causes species extinction

Weber 93 ~Darren Weber, post-doctoral fellow at UCSF, Environmental Ethics and Species "To be or not to be?" November 1993 http://dnl.ucsf.edu/users /dweber/essays/env_tp2.pdf 

A problem with utilitarian ethics is that the principle of the greatest good for the
AND
inequalities implied by utilitarianism are likely to promote the extinction of species. BF

Deontology Inevitable - It is grounded in human behavior

Economic Analysis, Common-Sense Morality and Utilitarianism Author(s): J. Moreh Source: Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jul., 1992), pp. 115-143 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20012427 Accessed: 22/07/2009 13:24
Common-sense morality is grounded in the consciousness of ordinary human beings and the
AND
many people regard moral rules as unconditionally binding or ’categori cal imperatives’). BF

Deontology does not dismiss consequences, categorical imperative means Deon still maximizes happiness

 Donaldson 95 (Thomas Donaldson  is Professor of Business Ethics at Georgetown U, Ethics and International Affairs,"International Deontology Defended: A Response to Russell Hardin", pg. 147-154)

When discussing nuclear deterrence or intervention it is common to exaggerate the nonconsequential nature¶
AND
not dismiss consequences. He simply wants them in their proper place. BF

Evaluating morality through rights and justice is intrinsically good while utilitarianism denies humans of their basic rights

Freeman 94 – Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of North Carolina (Samuel, "Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

Rawls’s thought may be this: in order to define the distributions (e.
AND
moral dictates into the maximand is incompatible with this very idea.4 BF

Rights incompatible with utilitarianism.

Brandt, professor of philosophy @ U Mich. 1992 Richard.  Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights.  Cambridge University Press.  Pg 196.
The first thing to notice is that utilitarianism is a general normative theory either about
AND
absolute liberty to pursue his own good according to his own judgment. BF

Therefore the CRITERION for the round is DEONTOLOGY

CONTENTION ONE – THE ADVOCACY

The environment should be given rights like the ones we have – this does not mean that we don’t do things like cut down trees, but it does mean that they are taken into consideration much like humans are
Christopher D. Stone, Professor of Law, University of Southern California. A.B. 1959, Harvard; LL.B. 1962, Yale. Chairman, Committee on Law and the Humanities, Association of American Law Schools.  Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights For Natural Objects. 1973

The reason for this little discourse on the unthinkable, the reader must know by
AND
environment should have the same rights as every other thing in the environment.

In addition, giving the environments rights does not mean that we don’t extract resources, it just means that we value the environments rights first.  Things like imminent domain also prove that these can be simultaneously done.

A Public Authoritative body has to recognize that something actually has rights, meaning that some form of government would have to grant the environment rights

Stone 2

First and most obviously, if the term is to have any content at all
AND
and, third, that relief must run to the benefit of it. 

Therefore the Affirmative advocates that Developing Countries should prioritize Environmental Protection over Resource Extraction when, and in every circumstance that the two are in conflict by giving the environment and natural objects legal standing.  For example, the environment will be given a right to not be harmed, as in the case of things like pollution, and it will be given compensation to make the environment “whole” again if its rights were violated.  I reserve the right to clarify. 

CONTENTION TWO – SOLVENCY

First, man only has something to gain by giving the environment rights – we have to radically change our ways in order to stop our environments destruction (or say "The Environment is being harmed – scientists have been warning us for years"). 

Stone 3

With this reservation as to the peculiar task of the argument that follows, let
AND
rate that takes little account of the needs even of humans now living.

Second, in order to solve for long term harms, we have to accept a Deontological aspect of the resolution now, even if it means giving up some of our material possessions ("Material possessions may be given up in order to prevent harm to the environment"). 

Stone 4

These problems will not be solved easily; they very likely can be solved,
AND
progress" would not be as costly as might appear on first blush.

Third, the environments rights can be represented by lawyers – several examples in current law prove (implementation) 

Stone 5

It is not inevitable, nor is it wise, that natural objects should have
AND
oversee its affairs and speak for it in court when that becomes necessary.

CONTENTION THREE – UNDERVIEW

The Affirmative doesn’t have to show explicit instances of Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction being in conflict – Deontology requires any instance of a violation of rights to be rejected, meaning that anytime that the Environments rights are being infringed upon we have to default to the most moral option and reject any instance of rights infringement.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 2 | Opponent: Rowland Hall-St Marks Max Milavetz | Judge: Lin, Alice
This is an underview of the Egypt case on Tommy's Wiki.  I also didn't read the fracking advantage.

Err on the side of systemic impacts – it’s the biggest consequence in the long term

Machan, Professor of Philosophy, 03

Tibor Machan, prof. emeritus of philosophy at Auburn University, 2003 "Passion for Liberty"

All in all, then, I support the principled or rights-based ap¬proach
AND
opinion" and violate those rights.1 Such is now the leading jurisprudence

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 3 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart Louisa Melcher | Judge: Bentley, Chris
This is the underview I read in this round, and I didn't read Fracking this time either.

Probability should be evaluated before magnitude

Rescher, Prof. of Philosophy, 83
Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, "Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management" 1983

A probability is a number between zero and one. Now numbers between zero and
AND
held, we can pretty well forget about it as worthy of concern.
The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of
AND
satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood JR | Judge: Nadel
I AFFIRM

First, By Affirming Lawyers will not be done away with completely instead they will be allowed to assist clients with legal matters, however any information exchanged will be made available to the court and they will be compensated for their services at a fixed rate for the type of case that they assist in.(1)

Second, all clients will be given the same rates regardless of any preexisting circumstance, with regards to the charges that are pressed against them.(2)

Third, any claims of increasing government control on those involved in the Legal System are false because the AFF attempts to deconstruct existing structures of power. (3)

Fourth, any systems that are brought up outside of the United States Criminal Justice System do not apply for two reasons: (4)
This resolution is specific to the United States, any empirics of justice systems that others use are never guaranteed to function in the United States.
Without proving that these systems advocate the Attorney Client Privilege and do not attempt to seek truth, they do not function underneath the Negative side of the resolution and instead flow AFF.

Possessed by greed, people disregard the interest of others – this is true in the case of Lawyers
Lisa G. Lerman Professor of Law and Director, Law and Public Policy Program, The Columbus School of
Law, The Catholic University of America; B.A., 1976, Barnard College, Columbia University; J.D.,
1979, New York University School of Law; LL.M., 1984, Georgetown University Law Center. I am
grateful to Jessica Kendall for her excellent work as a research assistant and to the law schools of
Catholic University and Hofstra University for their support for this work.  05/22/02 http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lerman2.pdf
Lots of lawyers are among the wealthiest people in the country.7 And the
AND
interests, either legally or illegally, honestly or dishonestly. 

The Wealthy have control in the Legal System – They have lower levels of incarceration than poor minorities
Ph.D.: UCLA, September 1984, Economics John R. Lott Jr. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 6. (Dec., 1987), pp. 1307-1316 http://www.sfu.ca/~~allen/buy.pdf
Preventing wealthy people from influencing the opinion of the court in their favor will lead
AND
criminal is the final purchaser of the service or not. 

We can see that the Wealthy Americans as well as Attorneys have power in the Criminal Justice system, creating a hierarchy of power towards clients. 

This Capitalist control ensures inequality – those who hold power have an interest in keeping the system unequal.  As stated above, this includes both racial and economic inequality in the CJS

Peet, prof. of economics @ London School of Economics, 75
(Richard Peet, prof of economics @ London School of Economics, 1975, "Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory")http://www1.geo.ntnu.edu.tw/~moise/Data/Books/Social/0820part20of20theory/inequality20and20poverty20a20marxist20geographic20theory.pdf 

The Marxist view is that inequality is inherent in the capitalist mode of production.
AND
of equality and social justice.

The Capitalists that are in control now have an interest in continuing the inequality; simply saying we can change the policies that enforce this is useless – we have to end Capitalism at its sources.

SYSTEMIC POVERTY KILLED 133,000 AMERICANS IN THE YEAR
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR Published: July 4, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/health/05social.html?_r=0  Researchers Link Deaths to Social Ills

Poverty is often cited as contributing to poor health. Now, in an unusual
AND
poverty and income inequality, then those things matter too."

You have an ethical obligation to reject capitalism – its violence is concealed and naturalized by everyday politics.
Zizek and Daly
(Slavoj, professor of philosophy at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek, pg 14-16)http://m.friendfeed-media.com/6f8c13dee87a632985bd870c748419227a5967f6
There is a further potential danger. This concerns especially orthodox trends in politically correct
AND
that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle.
And, individual rejections of Capitalism are important.  Each individual person has to consciously participate in the Capitalist system, and therefore we can only dismantle it through individual rejections.
 And, Capitalism cannot be brought to an end all at once.  The United States is too entrenched in Capitalism to be taken out at one time.  We have to take apart the system piece by piece.

In addition, any step towards the end of Capitalism is preferred, even if we can’t bring it to an end all together.

Finally no risk of the AFF linking back into the K.  The AFF is rejecting a system of Capitalist Oppression, and therefore would steer away from anything that might link itself back in.

Role of the Ballot:
The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater that best deconstructs oppressive norms or ideologies.

William Spanos writes Professor of English at Binghamton University, The End of Education: Towards Posthumanism, 1993, p. 196. http://books.google.com/books?id=QmhhneqkX_kCandpg=PA213andlpg=PA213anddq=The+End+of+Education:+Towards+Posthumanismandsource=blandots=gy2gfXHXmgandsig=vsgzOp0TzvGW9Rp29SPCyOzXQlYandhl=enandsa=Xandei=Qd5qUrHHCuqGyAGv84HwBAandved=0CGkQ6AEwCA#v=onepageandq=The20End20of20Education3A20Towards20Posthumanismandf=false 

In insisting that the theoretical practice of the oppositional intellectuals ought to be a local
AND
the benefit of all "mankind," if not for knowledge’s own sake.
And, the role of the judge is to be an educator – Your unique situation as a decision maker gives you the ability to change debate’s practices and endorse positive ideologies.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lone Peak MO | Judge: Boyer, Bekah

NDCA BAUDRILLARD AC

CONTENTION ONE TERRORISM

Somehow a bunch of disorganized, under-funded and under-skilled radicals will
AND
Protecting the environment will manage to stop them, just don’t ask how.

CONTENTION TWO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

Unless we protect the environment then we will run out of resources even though there’s no timeframe or probability behind this impact its going to happen, trust me, which will collapse the economy cuz we’re out of resources and this is going to cause extinction because obviously if our economy collapses everyone immediately dies.  

CONTENTION THREE BIODIVERSITY

If we don’t protect the environment now we’ll run out of fish and deer and possums and jack rabbits and Red Pandas and lots of other animals.  You can throw timeframe out the window, not like it’s going to matter when we face EXTINCTION212121

CONTENTION FOUR THE FREAKING SUN

If we don’t protect the environment the frickin sun is going to probably explode or something, that’s right, solar extinction.  We have to do the most arbitrary thing ever, vote AFF or the sun will detonate and we’ll probably die.

CONTENTION FIVE, YOU EVER WATCH THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL?

If we don’t protect the environment then alien robots will come down from the skies cuz their mad we didn’t protect the environment cause extinction, because for some reason it’s a good idea to protect the frickin trees to a bunch of aliens.  Don’t ask why, they have absolutely zero reason to even be here, but its gunna happen cuz killing daffodils and tulips.

(PAUSE)

Debate is a collection of non-unique impact simulations that have been engraved into the ritualistic ways of the activity, much like the media
"Simulacra and Simulation" Jean Baudrillard was a Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, where he taught an Intensive Summer Seminar. English translation copyright © by¶ The University of Michigan 1994¶ Originally published in French by¶ Editions Galilée 1981

This is how all the holdups, airplane hijackings, etc. are now in
AND
among principles, and¶ among those power is always in the right.

We have to understand not just the images we bring up about the environment but we also have to understand the lingual messages behind them as well - text and images are directly connected to language, meaning that the discourse of this round has real world meaning
Sidney I. Dobrin - Sid is University of Florida Research Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the Department of English at the University of Florida, where for ten years he directed the writing program. Prior to that, he served as Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas. Sid teaches advanced writing, visual rhetoric, technical writing, writing technologies, posthumanism, and environmental rhetoric. He is a leading figure in the development of "ecocomposition," a branch of study that examines the ecology of writing. He has written and edited more than twelve books, with several more in processes, most about writing. His research and writing are known internationally, and he speaks often at conferences and by invitation around the world. His textbooks are used widely throughout the country, and he is currently working on three new textbooks for composition and technical writing students all to be published by Pearson Higher Education. He is a board member for several academic journals, and contributes regularly to magazines and journals. He has served as a field editor for Florida’s The Fisherman magazine. Sean Morey – some contributor, don’t know who he is exactly. 2009 State University of New York Press, Albony  http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61788.pdf 

While we might try to understand images alone, that is, without attaching to
AND
seem necessarily to give us power over them. (1994, 6)¶ 

The cycle of Negativity in the hypderreal has to be proven through its opposite and then perpetuated 

 "Simulacra and Simulation" Jean Baudrillard was a Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, where he taught an Intensive Summer Seminar. English translation copyright © by¶ The University of Michigan 1994¶ Originally published in French by¶ Editions Galilée 1981
It would take too long to traverse the entire range of the operational¶ negativity
AND
proof of pedagogy through antipedagogy;¶ the proof of psychiatry through antipsychiatry etc.¶ 

Everything is metamorphosed into its opposite to perpetuate¶ itself in its expurgated form.
AND
order to preserve the blessing of¶ power. But it is lost. 

To seek new blood in its own death, to renew the cycle through¶ the mirror of crisis, negativity, and antipower: this is the only¶ solution-alibi of every power, of every institution attempting to¶ break the vicious circle of its irresponsibility and of its fundamental¶ nonexistence, of its already seen and of its already dead.

This constant production and oversaturation of the debate space results in nihilism – nothing has any meaning because of our constant drive for information
"The Transparency of Evil" Jean Baudrillard was a Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, where he taught an Intensive Summer Seminar. 1990

This process is not a critical one : crisis is always a matter of causality
AND
we call crisis is in fact a foreshadowing of this absolute¶ inertia .

Systems efficiency specific

Therefore the Advocacy of the Affirmative is to deny the meaning of the apocalyptic images brought up in the debate space – denying these images meaning is the only way to fracture the debate norms and actually pave the way for real education and to stop the nihilism 

 "Simulacra and Simulation" Jean Baudrillard was a Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, where he taught an Intensive Summer Seminar. English translation copyright © by¶ The University of Michigan 1994¶ Originally published in French by¶ Editions Galilée 1981

The universe, and all of us, have entered live into simulation,¶ into
AND
of appearances. He who strikes with meaning is¶ killed by meaning.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT

The role of your ballot is to reject the proliferation of harmful mindsets – our mindset in framing social issues, conscious or not, shapes our ability to effectively solve the problems we discuss in the real world. 

Blum: ¶   Andrew J. Blum, Managing Partner, the Triumph Group. “Managing Mindset to Break the Cycle of Reactive Decision-Making.” March 31, 2012. Training

Mindset is the underlying beliefs and assumptions we bring to a situation, conscious or
AND
are thrown around without clear definition.¶