Day 4

Lab 1- Larp
Plans defend subset of res

Fiat is a simulation of something happening

Cant say that plan wont happen- we simulate it

All offense the 1ac has comes from the post fiat world

Each extra part of the plan is called a plank

The plan is a topical subset of the res

Extra-t: we do the res but also add another action

For theoretical objecctions to plans

Make specific objections to their plan- have specific interps against their extra planks and really
spell out specific abuse story

Inherency ideantifiees the issue of harms- if x continues and goes over brink we all die

When making advantages have different types of args

Make extinction args and probability high args

Both low-prob extinction and high-prob arg (struct violence for example)

Don’t always need it but also should have solvency ev

Have a good solvency advocate- if it sucks people will find it out

The more planks you have the more you need specific solvency advocate

Most plan affs have util FW

Not required though- all FW does is sift out what impacts

Stay updated to the inherency of the squo- make sure they don’t get solved

Google news alerts

Ptx DAs you should have news alerts- uq changes every day

Link chains- every step in the chain leads to another thing

The fewer links needed in a chain the stronger your scenario will be

Framign args

Weighing the plan in the long run- I do things the neg does and more

Try or die- the squo harms are so bad that even if the worse things happen in the plan its still
better than the neg
 If the neg doesn’t read a counter advocacy (cp or alt) that means that they don’t solve
and that try or die
 AT: Affs
Contest uq- the problem will be resolved

The problem is inevitable

Uniqueness overwhelms the link- the harms of the squo are so intense the aff wont solve

This is terminal defense

 Extending
When extending plan

Extend plan text

Extending advantages

First, tell the story of the scenario- uq, links, internal links, terminal impact

Then go onto the contestation the NC had

Probably better to write out extensions

You don’t have to go for every advantage- just go for the one they undercover
 1AR theory
Lots of times the NC overloads the AC- like 5 off xd

1AR theory lets you uplayer

Also you can write underviews

 AT Larp AC
Have a means based NC that also links to the plan

If you have an nc that’s inherent to every AC on the topic you can link to every plan
Moved up a lab!
Lab 2 Kant
 History
Kant is writing around the time fo Descartes, hume, other big names in phil

A lot of his work is meant to respond to these thinkers

A lot of the things kant does are on purpose in a keen way

He tried to develop a system of phil that is different way

Hes trying to develop a “pure system of ethics”

How can we make a system that has no basis in the empirical world
 2 historical figures important for Kant
 Remae Descartes
o He founded the basis for lots of Western phil (age f enlightentment, time when social
conract and stuff)
o He developed rationsalism
o Tradition of phill that says that what matters and shapes phi is reason
 Its what matters and reflects our ability to think about things
o The fact I can think about what im going to do proves the rationality that humans
possess
 Differentiates us from animals
o The fact that we can think you abstract stuff in a moral law
o What rationalism gives us what it means to be a human being
 A lion can eat a gazelle but a lion will never think about what eating the gzeellle
means for it’s being
 This abstract, self reflection is what makes humans different from animals
o Reasons why he believes in rationalism
 He is skeptical of the empirical world
 Because we are stuck in our own brains, our own perspective, we cant
prove that the empirical world is actually how we think it is
 We can calculate and do math however we want but we cant verify the
empirical world
o 2 args
 Dreams
o We experience dreams and in the moment they feel real: there is no way to prove that
we aren’t in a dream right now
 The evil demon or mad scientist is tricking you to believe that the reality you experience is really
real
o There is no way to really prove the world is really real
 “I think, therefore I am”
o I cant verify that the world is real, but the fact I can think, rationalize, critique the world
and delve into deep thoughts about reality/ourselves proves that we exist
o The fact that I know that I am something comes from the fact that I can think
o Thinking doesn’t require an empirical world
 Dualism
o There are 2 parts of a human: mind and body
o Body is something that exists in space, the empirical world
o Mind is distinct from body- its on a higher level and controls the body

 David Hume
o Kant says that hume awakend him from dogmatic slumber
 Hume was a writer who said that we can only look towards the empirical world
 Hume’s contribution: empiricism
o The things we know aren’t from abstract thinking (metaphysics)
 o The only things we can really know is the empirical
o We are contantly being affected by desires and external stuff- reason must account for
this
 Hume developed the idea of sentimentalism- things must be from desires and wants
 The is-ought gap/fallacy
o There is a distance from the way things are and why those things should be ethical
 Hume thinks there is no is-ought fallacy
 Last problem : the problem of induction
o Deduction is where we go from a fact/premise and use that gain conclusions
o Induction is the opposite: you use the facts now and predict what will happen in the
future
o Hume has a big problem with this
 Nature is random- its impossible to fully predict the future
 It doesn’t make logical sense to use logic of induction
 Its circular- it relies on itself to justifies itself
o Ex: the sun is gonna rise tmrw cus it rose yesterday, but the only
reason why we can justify that the sun will rise again is because
we have seen it rise before, but that’s induction again
 There is no actual claim we can use to justify induction

What kant did

 Kantian metaphysics
o He divides everything into 2 worlds
o 1. The phenomenon – things you experience
 It’s the part of the world you experience- the empirical world. Ex: jumping up
and down
o 2. The noumenal
 The abstract truth: the place where truth exists, God is, practical reason
 Almost like a spiritual world
o Kant breaks everything into these 2 identifications
o Kant is an idealist: he believes in idealism
 Idealism: The way objects exist is only through our perception of them
 Ex: a gun has no moral worth except when I use it
o When I fire the gun the gun can never be bad, because objects
don’t have moral worth
o What is good/bad is based on the person
o Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
o The gun can never be bad/good- if I kill someone with the gun
im bad not the gun
o The gun is just like a rock
 Humans shape the world
 Kant’s moral phil
o Big thing for Kant is his belief in practical reason
o Practical reason is the type of reason we have as human beings
  We have the ability to think about things in abstract ways, self reflection, and
o This solves the is-ought fallacy
 There is no is- we don’t use it
 He goes straight to the ought and never uses the is
o Also solves problem of induction
 Never uses empirical world- just uses reason
o Reason is constitutive
 Constitutivism- the idea that there is something about us, based in our identity,
that makes us a certain identity
 Ex: I have a gun so Im a gun holder
 2 implications
o reason is binding
 the fact that we have “”
 To disprove reason is to prove it- you disproved reason
by using reason
o Its generalizable
 Constitutivism can contain lots of frameworks in it- any
ability to do anything “”
 Ex: pawn in chess has specific rules- even if its chopped
in half it still has rules in chess consititutive of it- the
thing that makes a pawn cease to be a pawn is to not
follow the rules
 Same thing with people- I can be any race but “””””””
 If we are all based in a constitutive idea we
share,
o Actions vs desires
 Actions must be based in intentionality and purpose
 Kant describes actions as an intent to do something
 When I will, I will an end
 But when I will an end, I need the means to do that
 So when I will an end I also will the means
 That means that action cannot be binding if it has no intent
 If you aren’t thinking in the empirical world only intentions can be used
 Its all about what you intend to do
o Action theory
 Rodl
 The only way you can conceive of action is through intentions
o You can break an action into infinite pieces- if I move a hand it
can be broken infinitely into time
o But the means of action is bound through the end- intention
o I intend to take an end, I will that end through means, I take
action
o How we can know of things
 Apioris
  Knowledge that can exist without need of empirical fact
 Its knowledge that is pure- stuff we could know if we were in a vacuum
 Ex: 2+2=4, triangles have 3 sides
 Important note: Kant doesn’t think there is any way to prove apriorism
knowledge
o His arg is just that there is a form of knowledge that can show
this
 A posteriori
 The world we experience contantly- the world we feel and know
 Aposteriori knowledge is knowledge we know is through reason
o Ex: jimmy is a jerk cus he stole my sandwich yesterday
 Kant prefers apriorism
o Analytic vs syntethic knowledge
 Kinda correspond to apriorism/aposteriori
 Analytic
 The truth of a statement can be considered true by the content of it.
The truth of it is tautologically true and self contained
 Synthetics
 The truth of the statement is only provable by stuff outside of the
statement
 What is ethics?
o We have already proved that intentions are the only thing that matter
 We only care abt intent since we are inside the abstract world
 Also conseqs are infinite
 Infinitely many conseqs
 We don’t car
o Ethics is based in a system of purely rational thinking
o Therefore we have imperatives
 Hypothetical imperatives
 Imperatives that are contingent- they are based on a dependency on
something else
o Ex: we want to eat cheese and I want to get it- obviously we
don’t want to eat cheese to eat cheese, its cus we need to eat
to live
o Ex: I teach because I need a job and get paid
 Kant doesn’t like these
 Categorical imperatives
 Big hoorah, the thing Kant cares about
 Things that exist in themselves
o A duty that contains in itself the reason we do it
o Categorical imperative has 3 parts
 1. The formula of universalizability
 Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it becomes a universal law
  If something proves that within reason it is unreasonable to do we
shouldn’t do it
 Means that we should stop contraditions
 Types of contradictions
o 1. Contradiction of inceptions
 If I will the end of the action I want to will, the world
would be completely inconceivable
 Ex murder: if I wanna murder someone and will
the universal maxim then everyone murders
each other and im eventually murdered, which
means that I couldn’t want to murder someone
in the first place
 Ex: stealing- the idea of stealing is contingent on
private property but if everyone steals there is
no private property which means you cant steal
 Ex lying: lying’s purpose is to trick you but if
everyone lies then you know that they are lying
so they cant trick you
o 2. Contradictions in the will
 If I will the end of an action and its universalizable and
the world is conceivable but it really sucks
 Ex: I will that I will help no one so no one helps
anyone else but that means that I also cant will
something like getting groceries since getting
groceries needs help from someone else
 There is a contradiction in the will if we hurt the
enviro- the enviro is needed to do actions so if
we hurt enviro it’s a contradiction in our will
 Weighing in Kant
 Perfect duties come first
o Contradiction in conception
o Ex cant lie
 There is a degree of bindingness
 Imperfect duty
o Contradictions in the will
o Ex: helping people- we can conceive of a world where we all
don’t help each other but it would rly suck
 2. Golden rule
 Act in such a way that you always treat someone as an end, not merely
as a means to an end
o Its to say that someone else’s will shouldn’t be used to further
my own will/end
o Ex: killing one person to save many treats them as a means to
save many so isn’t justified
 “mere mean”
o People can allow you to use them as a means to an end, but to
be a “mere mean” isn’t voluntary
 Ways to respond to Kant
Ways to answer metaethical FW

Make your own

2 parts of a metaphysical FW

1 . a condition an ethical theory must satisfy

2. the ethical theory

When answering Kant you need to answer 1) the metaethical part and 2) the normal part

The metaethical part

Practical identity Korsgaard- each of us have a number of identities, but all those identities are
contingent among circumstances/my ID with them except my practical identity. All contingent IDs are
just layered on reason- our practical identity is the very essence of who we are

AT this

Virtue ethics/naturalism- we cannot verify whether or not reason is part of

being human or if aliens can also do it

We don’t know if ability to reason is constitutive of being human or if its

through social stuff, language,e tc

Agonism- when we reason, our reason isn’t responsive through some universal
law. If it feel right to us it only feels right to us because we are already in a particular system of
reasoning

Attack the origin and nature of concepts (concepts being stuff like lying, dog,
etc. It’s the idea of something vs the actual thing)- people can attack the concepts of kant. For example,
say that concepts are socially determined. Example is the rule following paradox

Focusing on the apriori part of the FW is key, as Kant is contingent on

that when we universalize that we know some does or doesn’t cause contradictions we know it
does/doesn’t based on apriori knowledge

More brutish things- Reductionism, empiricism, stuff that denies apriori

knowledge

Ex: practical reason is contingent apriori truth, reductionism says that the only
thing that exists are stuff like atoms and therefore abstract truths are DED and don’t exist

AT: Ethical layer

Certain conditions allow for actions to be universalizable

Ex: I can kill in self defense and its universalizable

 There are an infinite amount of these conditions so every action can become
permissible

Cecolo 99-

The card says that whiteness took shape as the rational privileged white subject

This material, rational subject is seen as a white man

Rudyard Kipling- “the white man’s burden”

colonialism was justified through rationalism

Kant’s moral theory is racist/oppressive

Kant assigned more value to people who have “more rationality”

Aligns humanity with whiteness

According to Kant racism is a fact and natural

Yancy ev

the status of normativity aligns with the white subject

the white phil dude uses white ppl as examples and then applies them to all people

not specific to kant- can be used against most European theories and ideal theory

Its impossible for us to reason from nowhere

Alt ROB

Deconstruct what it means to be “man” or human

Distinguishes man and human, and examines nonhuman and human

Discourse from the perspective of minorities is seen as less/worse than European

authors cus of privilege

The way we resolve that is through granting credence to these phils

Generics

What is practical reason? What does it mean? How does your FW account for stuff not
from reason like desires or wants

A lot of these can be expanded into a full on kritik of the framework depending on your ROB

Kant also says that homosexuality is forbidden cus it makes a contradiction cus of reproduction
and making children

There is no such thing as a stable subject- people are constantly shaped by desires and stuff, the
idea that people are singular things is false, we should focus on the world
Reason isn’t real, its fallible, its misconstrued
 AT Util with Kant drill
Avoid is-ought fallacy

Only miy framework makes obligations we cannot escape since I use reason but util/other
theories use natural facts so you can always question why certain things are good but reason solves

AT Goodin

Explain the is-ought fallacy

Only describes how govemnts are I the squo, doesn’t mean govs ought to be like that

Govs are a collection of people, but there is always someone who is over those people who is
responsible for

Govmts are an expression of people’s will and people’s will are subject to practical reason so
transitively govmts also need to follow practical reason

o Also, the content of our reason may be different but the form of reason is the same
o