Skep underview:

First is the theoretical objection A is the interpretation: The affirmative may not parametricize the resolution and run skep triggers. B. is the violation: The affirmative violates this through the use of Beven and the grossbath evidence as possible skep triggers and through parametrasizing the resolution. C. is the standards First is groundParametricizing the resolution is worse enough for ground but the affirmative makes it impossible to debate through the use of skep triggers. I cant argue against the parametricization of the round as he can always just extend it and claim skep affirms. Second is breadthParametricizing the resolution leads to a lack of bredth. This could be solved by arguments about the meta-ethical standard which he uses but I cant even contest his standard or else I trigger skepticism. This is uniquely bad because Im not gaining access to educational opportunites about the topic as a whole. D. Theory is a voter for education and fairness Prefer competing interpretations as otherwise its just a race to the bottom. Second is the logical inconsistency. He claims that if no aff framework exists, no morality can exist, however he tries to extrapolate that It means because the aff framework exists, morality must exist. This forms a logical fallacy as it wrongly assumes that you can take the negative of an if then statement which you cant because it prescribes changes the nature of the argument.

Case Outlines

AFF

Stock AC
Definitions Ought- propostional operative National Security objectives

National security AC V: Governmental Morality Differs from regular morality as its specific to the collective agent we refer to as the united states government Standard: Util Happiness is the only intrinsic standard- and other moral theories collapse to util any ways. Robinson
Mills defense of the principle of utility in Utilitarianism includes five chapters. In the first, Mill sets out the problem, distinguishes between the intuitionist and inductive schools of morality, and also suggests limits to what we can expect from proofs of first principles of morality. He argues that (q)uestions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. ( CW, X.207). All that can be done is to present considerations capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is

[ Mill wanted to prove that] the basis for the principle of utilitythat happiness is the only intrinsically desirable thingby showing that we spontaneously accept it on reflection. (Skorupski 1989,
equivalent to proof. (CW, X.208). Ultimately, he will want to prove in Chapter Four 8). It is rather easy to show that happiness is something we desire intrinsically, not for the sake of other things. What is hard is to show that it is the only thing we intrinsically desire or value.

Mill agrees that we do not always value things like virtue as means or instruments to happiness. We do sometimes seem to value such things for their own sakes. Mill contends, however, that on reflection we will see that when we appear to value them for their own sakes we are actually valuing them as parts of happiness (rather than as intrinsically

desirable on their own or as means to happiness). That is, we value virtue, freedom, etc. as things that make us happy by their mere possession. This is all the proof we can give that happiness is our only ultimate end; it must rely on introspection and on careful and honest examination of our feelings and motives.

Only moral theories based in intrinsic standards are applicable to moral theories

And idealist moral theories such as deontology are non-applicable as they assume an individual actor Governments must look to consequentialism Woller

Contention 1: Its stopped terrorist attacks A. Violating digital privacy stops terror attacks B. produces a psychological effect of danger

Contention 2: Cyber Attack A. Cyber attack is being stopped by offensive snooping teams

B. Cyber attack results in nuclear meltdowns

Underview Constitutionality

Theory spikes

First if the aff wins a counter-interp or an I meet vote for the affirmative because I must fully invest time into it while they can go for substance or theory. This checks back against no risk theory positions. Second the neg may not PIC out of a particular provision or aspect of universal health care but rather has to defend the whole converse of the resolution. This is key to reciprocity- PICs give them easier access to the ballot because they can choose the best ground and leave me with the worst.

NEG

Human Worth NC
V: morality All normative claims are derived from Reason Korsgard That means we must respect human worth Appalbaum

Contention 1: Violation of Digital privacy is a disrespect for human worth A. Violation of consent B. You cant even provide consent Who where why how and when

Econ DA
A. uniqueness Econ fragile now B. Link. Invasions of digital privacy screws us competitiveness C. IL. Compettiveness key to heg D. Heg loss causes transition wars