Difference between revisions of "Prospect ST (Sophia Tian)"

I did a lot of phil debate in my career since it was the easiest option available to me at the time (didn't require much prep). It also didn't require as much coaching, so I find it a valuable option for people (mostly in Texas/the East Coast) who don't want to spend that much money on this activity.  

Feel free to [[User:CheeseMeese|contact me]] with any questions!  

== Docs ==

Here are all the positions I read -- I mostly included things I cut myself with topic-specific frontlines. Any policy position I read was likely cut by Elmer Yang or stolen off the wiki. I rarely actually used prewritten frontlines -- writing them was just so I could think about them through and articulate my thoughts.

=== 2022 -- 2023 ===

==== January/February ====

===== ACs =====

I mostly read Kant with an ASEAN advantage, but in more tricky rounds I'd just fill the aff with preempts (theory or AT: K) instead of the util advantage. I kept the Kant framework and advantage relatively short (< 3:00) since most people don't LBL the justifications anyway, so it wasted time in the aff that I could use to add other more strategic preempts. The one below is the longer Kant framework by itself with all the carded preempts I'd put in the framework. The offense went something like this:  

# Everyone is a priori equal.  

# Border discrimination restricts people's rights based off of factors they can't control (i.e., where they are born).  

# Therefore, borders ought to be open.   

[[:File:Prospect ST JF23 Kant AC.docx|JF23 -- Kant AC]]

[[:File:Prospect ST - JF23 - Kritikal Kantsequentialism AC.docx|JF23 -- Kritikal Kantsequentialism AC]]

===== NCs =====

[[:File:Prospect ST - JF23 Kant NC.docx|JF23 -- Kant NC]]

===== ACs =====

I read Kant with the Brahmaputra Dams advantage (thanks Elmer!). I cut a different Kant framework to justify property rights as a political necessity in order to leverage the environmentalism offense better. The TL;DR on that one is that:

# Freedom is important.

# Property rights are necessary for individuals to exercise their freedom.

# Property rights can only be guaranteed by the state.

# Thus, a state is necessary.

The environmentalism offense leveraged the idea that destroying the environment creates a contradiction in conception: if property rights are used to control resources but those resources are all destroyed in the process of exercising those property rights, there is no property in the first place to declare your rights over (e.g., say I overfish every day to increase my fish haul -- that kills all the fish and then I cannot achieve my original aim of getting more fish since they are all dead). This was probably my favorite framework.  

Not the most viable NC, ran it mostly for the speaks thing I mentioned above. This was a lot less elegant than the AC -- it was more like Milton Friedman-esque "REEEE PROPERTY RIGHTS!" It relied on Locke's conception of property -- labor mixing -- which just says that when you put your labor into something then you own it. It would therefore be unjust for the government to tell you how you ought to use your property (e.g., imagine I forced you to buy certain foods with your money (a form of property) -- it would seem unfair).  

==== September/October ====

===== ACs =====

The offense was that people who depend on private insurers to guarantee something essential to their life (healthcare) were being coerced, so the government, which is obligated to be fair to citizens via the social contract, needs to provide public insurance. Take the example of a man in poverty who is dependent on you to survive. Every week, you give him a stipend of $10,000 to stay alive. While he may seem free since he has plenty of money, it is up to you as to whether you want to withdraw that money -- if you were in a bad mood, for example, you could withdraw your charity for several months and he would starve and die. The reason this is coercion is because since he is fully dependent on you, you can make him do whatever you want (e.g., dance, rob banks, other favors) and he will have to obey or else die. Kant calls this coercion regardless of whether you are currently being generous or not since it still violates freedom (or as I like to articulate it, even the most well-treated prisoner is still a prisoner). The public option CP gave me headaches trying to answer it -- in my opinion it didn't really affirm since singlepayer is far too specific for Kant. Counterplans are underrated against phil affs!

===== NCs =====

My child, and the only policy position I will probably ever cut in my career.  

=== 2021 -- 2022 ===

It's literally all Kant.  

This was by far my favorite topic to date because I got to argue about property rights nonstop for like 4 months.

===== NCs =====

I called it Kant, but it's actually libertarianism in disguise.

==== November/December ====

===== ACs =====

===== NCs =====

==== September/October ====

===== ACs =====

This aff was fun but it sucked vs the K. It relied mostly on open-source as a community-building method.

===== NCs =====