Responses to Skept

8/3/2019 Responses to Skept

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/responses-to-skept 1/4

Answers 1 - 4

A. Interpretation

The negative debaters must only run one necessary and sufficient burdens.

B. Violation

The negative debater runs __1__ necessary but insufficient burdens.

C. Standards

Reciprocity – by running _1__ necessary and insufficient burdens the affirmative/negative debater

must respond to all the burdens to prevent the other debater from winning. This is extremelyabusive because it gives the affirmative/negative debater an unfair advantage in the round. This is

vital to fairness because when one debater has necessary but insufficient burdens they have a major

advantage in the round. This prevents the judge from determining who is the better debater in the

round but rather who had a greater advantage going into the round.

Ground – by making the affirmative/negative meet multiple side constraints in order to win the

round the affirmative/negative is violating my ground. These burdens force me into less groundmaking the ground of my opponent greater. Ground is key to fairness because it determinesoffensive capabilities and therefore unequal ground puts me at a structural disadvantage in the

round.

Research Burdens – the constraints the affirmative/negative has put on me makes the researchburden unequal. If it is allowed that my opponent can run these abusive positions, I will have to

prepare and prep for infinite conditions in order to have a chance at winning the round. Even if

people have been running or discussing this position or constraint(s), his knowledge of his advocac

ahead of time means he is infinitely more prepared to debate his case, structurally advantaging himand harming fairness. All we have going into the round is the resolution, but he functionally

changes its meaning. This standard is key to fairness because if the research burden is unequal myopponent will have more of an opportunity to improve his case positions prior to round. Thiscreates an inherent disadvantage for me coming into the round.

Strategy Skew – Because my opponent is running multiple no-risk issues, regardless of the amountof arguments I make he/she can just go for the one I under covered. I can’t develop a coherent

strategy because I can’t predict what my opponent will go for in his/her next speech. Strategy is ke

to fairness because it determines how we make arguments that will help us, and my opponent’sNIBs prevent me from doing this.

D. Voters

Fairness - debate is a competitive activity that requires an equal opportunity for both sides to winthe round. Maintaining fair rules is always the first priority of competitions because fairness is a

gateway issue: We must evaluate whether an act was fair before we can evaluate the substantiveimpact. Thus, voting on theory always comes before the resolution. Don’t let my opponent shift hiadvocacy to get out of this shell because he forced me to use time running it. The abuse has already

occurred. Thus the theory violation must be evaluated.

E. Competing Interpretations

Prefer C/I because reasonability pushes the level of abuse in debate and it is just a race to thebottom. Competing Interpretations make the debate rounds about the argument not the judgesopinion of abuse.



Answers 5 – 15

5. Off of the first Mackie Card: there is no explanation as to why there are different moral rules betweencommunities. This completely destroys this argument because there is no way to proves that moral statements

between communities contradict themselves.

6. Off of the first Mackie Card: there is no explanation of the concept of radical difference between societies.Therefore this argument does not function period.

7. “But Mackie is wrong and realism is right. Of course there are entities that meet these criteria. It’s true that they

are queer sorts of entities and that knowing them isn’t like anything else. But that doesn’t mean that they don’texist. John Mackie must have been alone in his room with the Scientific World View when he wrote those words.

For it is the most familiar fact of human life that the world contains entities that can tell us what to do and make u

do it. They are people, and the other animals.” (Christine Korsgaard, Sources of Normativity)

8. “That means realism is true on another level too. To see this, recall once again John Mackie’s famous “argumenfrom queer- ness.” According to Mackie, it is fantastic to think that the world contains objective values or

intrinsically normative entities. For in order to do what values do, they would have to be entities of a very strange

sort, utterly unlike anything else in the universe. The way that we know them would have to be different from theway that we know ordinary facts. Knowledge of them, Mackie says, would have to provide the knower with both a

direction and a motive. For when you met an objective value, according -to Mackie, it would have to be - and I’mnearly quoting now able both to tell you what to do and to make you do it. And nothing is like that.” (ChristineKorsgaard, Sources of Normativity)

9. Why does cognitivism give us the best account of linguistics and psychology? This claim is completely

unwarranted and thus this claim has no implications.

10. Syntax is no Semantics. A program only consists of syntax and understanding requires semantics. A program

such as cognitivism cannot explain understanding.

11. Humans are not computers. We have senses and feelings. This theory of cognitivism directly assumes that

humans are computers.

12. The second Mackie card states that we need a specific type of intuition to prove that morals exist. But, theircard never proves that we do not have this intuition and therefore the card does not actually have a warrant.

13. The fundamental problem with this argument is that if everything is not morally prohibited everything has to bmorally permissible.

14. The top of the case never explains why moral permissibility is a term of art. For all we know the resolutioncould have stated that in different format. There is fundamentally no warrant for this claim. If this is true it doesnot disprove the permissibility of an action, and thus you affirm.

15. The fact that we have developed what we think are morals it enough to prove that we do have morality.





Documents

Responses to Skept