Difference between revisions of "Iowa City West NW"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi my name's Nate and I debated at Iowa City West for four years. I acquired 9 bids to the TOC in my career (1 sophomore year, 2 junior year, 6 senior year) and made Quarters of the TOC as a junior and Doubles as a senior. I mostly did phil/theory debate. Something I found the wiki and Circuit Debater very useful for coming from a small school was finding different frameworks to read/try out so I'm going to post my phil cases here. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me at | Hi my name's Nate and I debated at Iowa City West for four years. I acquired 9 bids to the TOC in my career (1 sophomore year, 2 junior year, 6 senior year) and made Quarters of the TOC as a junior and Doubles as a senior. I mostly did phil/theory debate. Something I found the wiki and Circuit Debater very useful for coming from a small school was finding different frameworks to read/try out so I'm going to post my phil cases here. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me at [/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection <nowiki>[email protected]</nowiki>] | ||
Contracts: | Contracts: Contracts says the only moral obligations you have are to do what you agreed to do in contracts with others. | ||
This framework has a meta-ethic, which is a top level observation about how ethics should be formed. I.e. in the contracts framework it is anti-realism (as opposed to moral realism) which says that there are no objective moral facts, or things like "goodness". (Keep in mind the framework also has a card in it about how we can solve this dilemma to "salvage ethics"). This meta-ethic is useful in answering frameworks like Util or Kant that claim "pleasure is intrinsically good" or "ethics begins a priori" because those both presume there are some moral facts that we're able to find, which contracts indicts. | |||
This is the framework itself: | This is the framework itself: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
Here are two example cases that use the framework. | Here are two example cases that use the framework. | ||
Contracts NC: [[File:JF2023 Contracts NC.docx]] | Contracts NC: [[File:JF2023 Contracts NC.docx]] | ||
Contracts AC: [[File:ND2022 Contracts AC.docx]] | Contracts AC: [[File:ND2022 Contracts AC.docx]] | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 23 April 2023
Hi my name's Nate and I debated at Iowa City West for four years. I acquired 9 bids to the TOC in my career (1 sophomore year, 2 junior year, 6 senior year) and made Quarters of the TOC as a junior and Doubles as a senior. I mostly did phil/theory debate. Something I found the wiki and Circuit Debater very useful for coming from a small school was finding different frameworks to read/try out so I'm going to post my phil cases here. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me at [/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection [email protected]]
Contracts: Contracts says the only moral obligations you have are to do what you agreed to do in contracts with others.
This framework has a meta-ethic, which is a top level observation about how ethics should be formed. I.e. in the contracts framework it is anti-realism (as opposed to moral realism) which says that there are no objective moral facts, or things like "goodness". (Keep in mind the framework also has a card in it about how we can solve this dilemma to "salvage ethics"). This meta-ethic is useful in answering frameworks like Util or Kant that claim "pleasure is intrinsically good" or "ethics begins a priori" because those both presume there are some moral facts that we're able to find, which contracts indicts.
This is the framework itself: File:Contracts Framework .docx
Here are two example cases that use the framework.
Contracts NC: File:JF2023 Contracts NC.docx
Contracts AC: File:ND2022 Contracts AC.docx