Notes

I've been busy with school-related work, and whenever I've been given the opportunity to do debate work, I've made the decision to spend time doing some activist-organizational-political work I've involved myself in.

Federalism is bad because it destroys our ability to implement a revolutionary universality.

I don't think that the concession of magnitude matters is meaningful at all. It depends on a certain threshold for probability being passed -- if she proves that her DA is probable, then we just return to the question of probability

Bok --
Bok argues that a desirable ethical framework should see every other person as an end and never as a means. Any framework that is willing to risk extinction to attain some desirable thing is morally irresponsible. Bok says that the only proper ethical system is one which protects the life of all humans as an end.

Schell argues that raising some idea, concept, object, whatever to a level that is above that of life, we open the space for extinction to occur by relegating human life to a secondary ethical consideration and closing down various possibilities for human development (since we become fixated on that thing we’ve elevated).

Anscombe says that any moral system must allow its morality to be violated to prevent people from inflicting harm onto others by following the moral system. If for instance, one values following traditional morality, one should be able to break that system if a particularly horrible situation calls for it.

Schell and Anscombe speak of the danger of assigning value to a cause, idea, object, whatever that is greater than preventing extinction or preserving human life.

What separates our framework from yours is that we have grounded our ethical system on the objective need to preserve human life, but you have assigned a value to some subjective thing that is higher than human life



Given a situation, where policy-makers and political actors have limited information, and are unable to calculate the probability of a scenario occuring, if they could stop the situation via intervention, what should they they evaluate? What if the information they have access to makes the situation particularly urgent and the potential of nuclear war or extinction?

If extinction is not first, how should we contextualize extinction impacts? How should we interact with them? Where should we place them on this value hierarchy?

Given the disintegration of liberal world order, the rise of populist nationalism, militaristic rhetoric, democratic decline, and growing military spending, how does the Easterbrook evidence still apply? How do economic institutions preserve interdependence in the context of a collapsing economy and a nationalist turn inwards? Do the conflicts in the Middle East not count as proxy wars, like for instance syria, where the US supports rebels and Russia supports teh government?









First problem, going for too much, just on Easterbrook alone there are 6-7 warrants. It is probably impossible to undermine every warrant. Focus on a few critical arguments that take out the card. Stop open ended questions -- go back to the evidence and just get some concessions -- first thing you should establish is that there is no great power conflict -- start with something they can't squirm

- Nail them to the evidence first -- puts you on the offensive; trying to take too big of a leap in the questions; keep in mind the objectives of cross-ex, we want to do our objectives, long-drawn out streams of questions are bad; they'll point out flaws in your logic. Don't establish like multiple postulations? Nail them to the evidence

Given limited information, the goal should not be to securitize, but to open up diplomatic channels or increase the amount of imformation is present.
Can you define utility? Why is utility worth maximizing? How much (I suppose negative) value can we assign to human extinction? How can we make that calculation?



However, doesn’t the logic of this card reproduce the problem it identifies: even killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish. Using that murdered innocent as a means to attain an end, the reproduction of human life.