evanston js v. law magnet dd

8/11/2019 Evanston JS v. Law Magnet DD

1/11

competing claims - not question of 1. violates prefer we know way to de

entitled need to organs 2. plans bad takes out - inflite abuse

rodriguez presumption post mortem body 1. presumption not when dec

cannot overcome inherent meanlingless

absurdism cannot overcome meaningless

cammuu thought reduces human understanding

1. human need incoherent - human understanding

only images we attribute

all though antopomopic

frames ehtical thought

human approximations

quantum theory tells us otherwise

game of prediction

3. death renders meaningless

cancels life meaning - death only reality

inevitible of death

4. insitutions exist to have meaning

reder social institution

5 paradox of god makes meaningless

cammus 3 master absurdity - ether not free or god not all powerfull

absuridism comes first

res epistimological theory

more weight to living

1. all conclusion must priotize human expreience

cammus 4outwieghts cant experience

2. people dead organs not relavent

3. all values genvise 3

truthworthy real experience

is just

4 only response is to recognize

bransher - accurate - limits reflection

goes beyond individual

conditional statement ought to presume consent - deny society - skep a

reders entire conditional trueprefer aff interps on t 1. reders moot b clash about topic kills educaiton

3 drop arg on t and other interp issue

b return substance on debate

theory interps defience

cx checks

dead people no autonomy harris


2/11


3/11


4/11

cide what is meaningfull

- reasonable aff gets to frame skew aff

ased - until dead

all meaning subjective takes out antro illogical

takes out sinababu subjective meaning

3. prefer my offense

how we evauate

concedes life prereq

firms


5/11

extend interp priorty calims extend interp - does not meet

1. grammar only interp accoutns fo extend violation

2. fiction presumption buzz word grammar comes first resolvesd pre

key to fairness dont use legal terms

1. non unique 2. turn it disillusioned - philosopical effect control link to

extend critical think 1. arg turn not

role playingmkew internal link also

second phil clash indicate still run f

weighing phil ed wont create ed sp

internal link to phil ed

bstance ed- link to real world 2. incentives neg not run theory 3. good t

more abusive

skew arg

ns

ops

s

son

intelligent

political

f ballot


6/11

1. a interpdebaters must only read 1. ci aff should be able to defend pr

keller b I meet

1. philsophical ed internal link to crit ed consistant wi

theorectical warrant ignore phil deboppresive space

better deabter moot substance controls internal link to pedagogy n

tautological kills ground

fairness voter critical ed needs safe space

need to be fair space crti needs

2. diincentivie - controls link to crt ed

a neg must defend aff interps on t i problem conedeing semantic issue

extend ac args extend ground skew when we speak langauage differs d

clash extend - abusive not infinite a I meet to interp not reasonable - n

as long reasonable and basis on top aff must accept interps of nc seman

strong link into my shell

meta theory precedrual claims have to evualte that first

comes before evaulae debate on all - which ones

contrain it but still critically unpeda


7/11


8/11

grammer non responsive - only my interp what it means winning grammar - argue about d

ormative nature which means policy option 2. turn resolved what future american hertiag

rit ed also gives better understanding

ontextualizes

oncedeing giroux social recontructionalists

but still debate fw

ce cant be neutral

eory debaters abusive illogical 4. alwasya abuseive


9/11


10/11


11/11

f grammatical structure - winning grammar metatheory

question course of action legislator more gramatical - need competing interp debate

evanston js v. law magnet dd

Documents