You are on page 1of 11

competing claims - not question of implementation 1.

violates prefer we know way to decide what is meaningfull


entitled need to organs 2. plans bad takes out - inflite abuse - reasonable aff gets to frame skew aff
rodriguez presumption post mortem body 1. presumption not when deceased - until dead
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 4
outwieghts 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 affirms
reders entire conditional true
prefer 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
a. aff must defend implementation
b doesnt defend policy option
critical thinking skills krital et al
reflect critical thinking skills
alternative worlds of thinking
giroux - development of phil
critical thinkers to transfrom system
outwieghts ed or fariness
agents of change
arbitary metric
no brightline
competing interps
drop arg - go for nc turns
no rvi 1. collapse to all theory bad substance ed- link to real world 2. incentives neg not run theory 3. good theory debaters abusive illogical 4. alwasya abuseive
outweights time skew - rvi not neg be more abusive
they get first speech solves back time skew arg
2. turn allows ability strategic decisions
aff exclusive rvi not solve side bias
solves back for reciprocity
unrealiable sandbabu takes out ac
induction - maintaining belief
sanubabu 2
introspect when pain
and objectively true
sinubabu 3 pleasure others good
minimizing harm
policy makers util woller
schider util solves
fw about action look to indiviudal steops
k lobby political thinking
distintive human intrincic aff cx checks
animals between humans
first analysis deceased defined as person
includes animals
vote for k singer - other animals less intelligent
animals suffer b alternatives morally political
makes courses of action possible
exclude not read alt bad under role of ballot
meta theory precedrual claims have to evualte that first
comes before
1. violates prefer we know way to decide what is meaningfull
2. plans bad takes out - inflite abuse - reasonable aff gets to frame skew aff
rodriguez presumption post mortem body 1. presumption not when deceased - until dead
all meaning subjective takes out antro illogical
takes out sinababu subjective meaning
3. prefer my offense
how we evauate
concedes life prereq
conditional statement ought to presume consent - deny society - skep affirms
extend interp priorty calims extend interp - does not meet
1. grammar only interp accoutns for this abuse extend violation
2. fiction presumption buzz word grammar comes first resolvesd preformative nature which means policy option 2. turn resolved what future american hertiage question course of action legislator more gramatical - need competing interp debate
key to fairness dont use legal terms
1. non unique 2. turn it disillusioned - philosopical effect control link to crit ed also gives better understanding
extend critical think 1. arg turn not contextualizes
role playingmkew internal link also concedeing giroux social recontructionalists
second phil clash indicate still run fw but still debate fw
weighing phil ed wont create ed space cant be neutral
internal link to phil ed
no rvi 1. collapse to all theory bad substance ed- link to real world 2. incentives neg not run theory 3. good theory debaters abusive illogical 4. alwasya abuseive
outweights time skew - rvi not neg be more abusive
they get first speech solves back time skew arg
2. turn allows ability strategic decisions
fw about action look to indiviudal steops
distintive human intrincic aff cx checks
first analysis deceased defined as person
vote for k singer - other animals less intelligent
animals suffer b alternatives morally political
exclude not read alt bad under role of ballot
1. a interpdebaters must only read normative inetps 1. ci aff should be able to defend prefiat
keller b I meet
1. philsophical ed internal link to crit ed consistant with role of ballot CI net preferable
theorectical warrant ignore phil debate oppresive space
better deabter moot substance controls internal link to pedagogy nonsentsical directly conflicts - need to win I dont link
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 if theres words so basis in topic lit problem conedeing semantic issue aff desont set issues
extend ac args extend ground skew t negates 6 min offense when we speak langauage differs derives meaning
clash extend - abusive not infinite abuse I meet to interp not reasonable - not meet
as long reasonable and basis on topical literature aff must accept interps of nc semantic I meet
strong link into my shell
meta theory precedrual claims have to evualte that first
comes before evaulae debate on all - which ones meta preferable
contrain it but still critically unpedagoical
grammer non responsive - only my interp what it means winning grammar - argue about def grammatical structure - winning grammar metatheory
grammar comes first resolvesd preformative nature which means policy option 2. turn resolved what future american hertiage question course of action legislator more gramatical - need competing interp debate
1. non unique 2. turn it disillusioned - philosopical effect control link to crit ed also gives better understanding
extend critical think 1. arg turn not contextualizes
role playingmkew internal link also concedeing giroux social recontructionalists
second phil clash indicate still run fw but still debate fw
weighing phil ed wont create ed space cant be neutral
no rvi 1. collapse to all theory bad substance ed- link to real world 2. incentives neg not run theory 3. good theory debaters abusive illogical 4. alwasya abuseive
1. ci aff should be able to defend prefiat
internal link to crit ed consistant with role of ballot CI net preferable
controls internal link to pedagogy nonsentsical directly conflicts - need to win I dont link
link of standard crit ed - phil does matter link to cirt ed
conceding ground standard concdeding meta theory ground
massive impact look to me
need to establish rules first fairness comes first - weighed agsinst crit ed
examine underying factors massive links to fairness and ed crit not clear
doesnt contest kills ground
extend clash controls crit ed
not why look to meta theory
aff must accept interps of nc semantic I meet
precedrual claim if his theory is inherently unfair not winning because cheating
contrain it but still critically unpedagoical
grammer non responsive - only my interp what it means winning grammar - argue about def grammatical structure - winning grammar metatheory
grammar comes first resolvesd preformative nature which means policy option 2. turn resolved what future american hertiage question course of action legislator more gramatical - need competing interp debate

You might also like