Framing

Ethics must be derived a priori:

1. Experience can only tell us what something is, but not what it ought to be. You
can’t experience morality since its not a physical thing.
2. Dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make
empiricism unreliable. That makes morality arbitrary since people could say
they don’t experience the same thing.

AND, The meta ethic is practical reason. Prefer:

1. Regress-- All else makes us question why we should do something then why we
follow that reason etc which is regressive. Reason solves as we need a reason
for a reason.
2. Bindingness-- you can’t deny reason without using reason so all args inherently
concede the authority of reason.
3. Action Theory-- reason connects action. If action X relied on actions A only
reason tells us we must do both. Without reason, desirable actions would
simply isolate into infinity and become irresolvable.
4. Only reason gives normative claims-- without reason actions are made by
emotion which fail because they keep changing thus only reason can derive
what a wrong action is because its consistent.
5. Ethics should ask “why should we be moral” else I’ll never have to be moral

AND, moral laws must be universalizable

1. If morality wasn’t universal, it would be arbitrary and fail to guide action
2. There’s no a priori distinction between agents because we’re all practical
reasoners– individuals can’t be exempt from maxims that apply to others
3. Moral truths are objective and can be derived from reflection so they must be
universal. It doesn’t make sense to say that 1+1 is 2 for me, but not for you.
4. I can only understand my reason by observing others reason, so to take
someone’s reason would take away mine as I can’t observe myself with them

Thus the standard is respecting people as ends in themselves. Prefer additionally:

1. We must have the capacity to set and maintain ends but that requires the
freedom to do so. Freedom is consistent with practical reason because we must
have the freedom to reason.
 2. Real world education-- an understanding of Kantianism is key to
understanding the law in the real world-- Germany proves
Ripstein Arthur Force and Freedom Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy Harvard University Press
2009 *bracketed for clarity and grammar*
the German Basic Law says but the organizing principle
Strictly speaking the right to dignity is not an enumerated right in
under which all enumerated rights ranging from life and security of the person through freedom of
expression movement association and employment and the right to a fair trial to equality before the law are
organized It appears as Art I1 Human dignity shall be inviolable To respect and protect it shall be the duty of
all state authority Art I3 explains that the enumerated rights follow The following basic rights shall bind the legislature the executive and the
judiciary as directly applicable law Other enumerated rights are subject to proportionality analysis through which they can be restricted in light of
each other so as to give effect to a consistent system of rights The right to dignity is the basis of the states power to legislate and so is not subject
to any limitation even in light of the enumerated rights falling under it because to put it in explicitly Kantian terms citizens
could not give themselves a law that turned them into mere objects

3. Our framework is k2 combating oppression

Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race,
postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). “Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon
the Kantian Categorical Imperative?” JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002,
17–32.
Whereas most criticisms are aimed at the formulation of universal law and the formula of autonomy, our analysis here will focus on the formula of an end in itself and
the formula of the kingdom of ends, since we have already addressed the problem of universality. The latter will be discussed first. At issue here is what Kant means by
“kingdom of ends.” Kant writes: “By ‘kingdom’ I understand a systematic union of different rational beings through common laws.”32 The above passage indicates that
Kant recognizes different, perhaps different kinds, of rational beings; however, the problem for most critics of Kant lies in the assumption that Kant suggests that the
“kingdom of ends” requires that we abstract from personal differences and content of private ends. The Kantian conception of rational beings requires such an abstraction.
Some feminists and philosophers of race have found this abstract notion of rational beings problematic
because they take it to mean that rationality is necessarily white, male, and European.33 Hence, the systematic union of
rational beings can mean only the systematic union of white, European males. I find this interpretation of Kant’s moral theory quite
puzzling. Surely another interpretation is available. That is, the implication that in Kant’s philosophy, rationality can only apply to white, European males does not
seem to be the only alternative. The problem seems to lie in the requirement of abstraction. There are two ways of
looking at the abstraction requirement that I think are faithful to Kant’s text and that overcome the criticisms
of this requirement. First, the abstraction requirement may be best understood as a demand for
intersubjectivity or recognition. Second, it may be understood as an attempt to avoid ethical egoism in
determining maxims for our actions. It is unfortunate that Kant never worked out a theory of intersubjectivity, as did his successors Fichte and
Hegel. However, this is not to say that there is not in Kant’s philosophy a tacit theory of intersubjectivity or recognition. The abstraction requirement simply demands
that in the midst of our concrete differences we recognize ourselves in the other and the other in ourselves. That is, we recognize in others the humanity that we have in
common. Recognition of our common humanity is at the same time recognition of rationality in the other. We recognize in the other the capacity for selfdetermination
and the capacity to legislate for a kingdom of ends. This brings us to the second interpretation of the abstraction requirement. To avoid ethical egoism
one must abstract from (think beyond) one’s own personal interest and subjective maxims. That is, the categorical
imperative requires that I recognize that I am a member of the realm of rational beings. Hence, I organize
my maxims in consideration of other rational beings. Under such a principle other people cannot be treated
merely as a means for my end but must be treated as ends in themselves. The merit of the categorical
imperative for a philosophy of race is that it contravenes racist ideology to the extent that racist
ideology is based on the use of persons of a different race as a means to an end rather than as ends in
themselves. Embedded in the formulation of an end in itself and the formula of the kingdom of ends is the recognition of the common hope for humanity. That is, maxims ought to be
chosen on the basis of an ideal, a hope for the amelioration of humanity. This ideal or ethical commonwealth (as Kant calls it in the Religion) is the kingdom of ends.34 Although the merits of
Kant’s moral theory may be recognizable at this point, we are still in a bit of a bind. It still seems problematic that the moral theory of a racist is essentially an antiracist theory. Further, what shall
we do with Henry Louis Gates’s suggestion that we use the Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime to deconstruct the Grounding? What I have tried to suggest is that instead of
abandoning the categorical imperative we should attempt to deepen our understanding of it and its place in Kant’s critical philosophy. A deeper reading of the Grounding and Kant’s philosophy in
general may produce the deconstruction35 suggested by Gates. However, a text is not necessarily deconstructed by reading it against another. Texts often deconstruct themselves if read properly.
To be sure, the best way to understand a text is to read it in context. Hence, if the Grounding is read within the context of the critical philosophy, the tools for a deconstruction of the text are
provided by its context and the tensions within the text. Gates is right to suggest that the Grounding must be deconstructed. However, this deconstruction requires much more than reading the
Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime against the Grounding. It requires a complete engagement with the critical philosophy. Such an engagement discloses some of Kant’s
What deconstruction will reveal
very significant claims about humanity and the practical role of reason. With this disclosure, deconstruction of the Grounding can begin.

is not necessarily the inconsistency of Kant’s moral philosophy or the racist or sexist nature of the
categorical imperative, but rather, it will disclose the disunity between Kant’s theory and his own feelings
about blacks and women. Although the theory is consistent and emancipatory and should apply to all
persons, Kant the man has his own personal and moral problems. Although Kant’s attitude toward people
of African descent was deplorable, it would be equally deplorable to reject the categorical imperative
without first exploring its emancipatory potential.

4. We outweigh even under consequentialist frameworks because there’s no value

to life if we’re just mere objects to one another. Value to life outweighs life itself
because there’s no point in life if we don’t care about it.

Our framework only cares about intent-based consequences since only intent is
derived from reason and consequentialism is non-normative as it can’t generate
obligations. Intents first:
1. Regress-- Consequences create infinite regress because
a. Each consequence creates a new set of consequences so there’s no start
or end point
b. We have to calculate the probability of your impact then the probability
of your prediction being correct etc.
2. Induction fails--
a. The past doesn’t repeat itself-- we’ve only had 1 scientific revolution
b. Induction requires induction to find the accuracy of induction-- thats
regress
c. No actor’s 100% consistent with induction since people change overtime
3. Good intents are purely good but consequences are contradictory since
pleasure may come at the expense of pain.
4. Intents chronologically come first so they’re are a prereq to consequences
5. Intent based frameworks allow for critical thinking by shifting debaters from
tons of evidence files which forces debaters to think on their feet
6. Actions can be infinitely subdivided i.e. me drinking water is infinite steps but
we classify it via my intent to drink water, thus intents are a prereq to action.
7. We can only morally culpable for what we will for, else there is no reason to be
moral if I’m being punished for something I can’t control
8. Aggregation fails as you can’t compare 5 headaches to a migraine
9. There are infinite possible futures and the future is infinitely long. That means
consequentialism is infinitely wrong
 Offense
We defend the rez as a general principle, we’ll clarify in cx. CP’s and implementation
are irrelevant. Check T/theory interps in cx to prevent silly theory debates. My
sufficient burden is to prove that the tests are unethical. Now affirm:
1. Standardized tests are simply a tool of the state that have different intents than
advertised
Thomas Armstrong, 2-28-13, "15 Reasons Why Standardized Tests are Worthless," American
Institute for Learning and Human Development, https://www.institute4learning.com/2013/02/28/15-reasons-
why-standardized-tests-are-worthless-2/ //SR
10.Standardized tests reduce the richness of human experience and human learning to a number or set of numbers. This is dehumanizing . A student may have a deep
knowledge of a particular subject, but receive no acknowledgement for it because his or her test score may have been low. If the student were able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion, or
create a hands-on project, he/she could show that knowledge. But not in a standardized testing room. Tough luck. 11. Standardized tests weren’t developed by geniuses. They were developed by
mediocre minds. One of the pioneers of standardized testing in this country, Lewis Terman, was a racist (the book to read is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould). Another pioneer,
Edward Thorndike, was a specialist in rats and mazes. Just the kind of mind you want your kid to have, right? Albert Einstein never created a standardized test (although he failed a number of
them), and neither did any of the great thinkers of our age or any age. Standardized tests are usually developed by pedantic researchers with Ph.Ds in educational testing or educational psychology.
If that’s the kind of mind you want your child or student to have, then go for it! 12. Standardized tests provide parents and teachers with a false sense of security. If a student scores well on a test,
then it is assumed that they know the material. However, this may not be true at all. The student may have simply memorized the fact or formula or trick necessary to do well on the test (some
students are naturally gifted in taking standardized tests, others are not). A group of Harvard graduates were asked why it is colder in the winter and warmer in the summer. Most of them got the
question wrong. They were good test-takers but didn’t understand fundamental principles that required a deeper comprehension (the book to read is The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and
Standardized Tests; the K-12 Education that Every Child Deservesby Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, named in a poll as one of the 100 greatest public intellectuals in the world). 13.
Standardized tests exist for administrative, political, and financial purposes, not for educational ones.
Test companies make billions. Politicians get elected by promising better test results. Administrators get
funding and avoid harsh penalties by boosting test scores. Everyone benefits except the children. For
them, standardized testing is worthless and worse. 14. Standardized testing creates “winners” and losers.” The
losers are those who get labeled as “my low students” “my learning disabled kids,” “my reluctant learners.”
Even the winners are trapped by being caught up on a tread mill of achievement that they must stay on at
all costs through at least sixteen years of schooling, and more often twenty years. The losers suffer loss of self-esteem, and the damage of “low expectations” (which research shows actually
negatively influences performance – the book to read is Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson). The
winners suffer loss of soul, since most of them are trained seals performing for fast-track parents and may reach midlife on a pinnacle of power and achievement, yet lack any connection to their
deeper selves, to ethical principles, to aesthetic feelings, to spiritual aspirations, to compassion, creativity, and/or commitment to life. 15. Finally, my most important reason that standardized tests
are worthless: During the time that a child is taking a test, he/she could be doing something far more valuable: actually learning something new and interesting!

2. Standardized tests commodify students and turn them into mindless workers-
- our evidence is fire students are literally deemed “human resources”
. Julia Barrier-Ferreira, “Producing Commodities or Educating Children? Nurturing the Personal Growth of
Students in the Face of Standardized Testing,” THE CLEARING HOUSE: A JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL
STRATEGIES, ISSUES AND IDEAS v. 81 n. 3, January/February 2008, p. 138-139. //SR
Standardized testing is a reality with which all educators must contend. Although the laws enforcing such
assessments do so under the premise that students will thereby be assured an equal opportunity for academic
success, they overlook a critical point—students are human beings with needs that reach beyond what is
measured on a testAthe focus of education has turned to treating children as commodities rather than
helping them to develop not only their intellect but also their emotional and social selves . [THEY
CONTINUE] Many in education speak of the importance of fostering a sense of community among students and incorporating character
education into schools, yet we
do not always allow youngsters the opportunity to be children and to share who they
are as human beings because of the pressure imposed by standardized testing. Yet, are we not running a greater
risk by denying them the opportunity to learn about and from one another as people? Greene (2007) speaks of how the overwhelming focus on
standards and testing has actually served to restrict student growth in terms of how they perceive themselves within the educational context and the
types of students they become as a result: “[Students] find themselves described as ‘human resources,’ rather than
as persons who are centers of choice and evaluation . . . [so] perhaps it is no wonder that the dominant
mood is one of passive reception” (33). Instead of moving forward with our teaching by helping students to become active agents in
their learning, we instead stunt their development by limiting their instruction to content and skills. The objectives of achieving academic excellence
and nurturing the development of knowledgeable and compassionate human beings do not have to be, and should not be, mutually exclusive: “To
have as our educational goal the production of caring, competent, loving, and lovable people is not anti-intellectual. Rather, it demonstrates respect
for the full range of human talents” (Noddings 2007, 65). Although giving them the best preparation possible is unarguably the responsibility of
every educator and administrator, students must feel valued for more than the economic potential that they hold in the global market.
 3. Standardized tests treat teachers as a means to an end because they are seen as
merely a tool to teach students for a test. The teachers are simply a method to
put kids “above par” and are easily replaceable-- that’s the perfect example of
commodification.
4. Testing encourages study drugs - that’s non universalizable as it a) permits
cheating and b) distort the mind and take away one’s capacity to reason
Shawn Romer, 2008, Combating the Unfair Competitive Edge: Random Drug Testing Should Be
Implemented in Standardized Testing to Deter Illicit and Unfair Use of Prescription Stimulants, Cleveland
State University, https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=jlh
//SR
Anyone taking prescription stimulants are put at an unfair competitive edge vis-à-vis those who take the tests in a legal
manner. In this way, the standardized nature of the test is not preserved, and thus one of the major purposes
of the test is defeated.71 Whatever the actual proportion is, many students illicitly use prescription stimulants to enhance their academic
performance in school.72 Because standardized test scores are weighted so heavily in admissions
considerations, it is probable that there are more students like John Doe abusing prescription stimulants to
enhance test scores.

5. Standardized tests are an act of cultural domination and are intrinsically

unethical. Domination is non-universalizable because it assumes the dominated
may dominate.
Delgado 2k Delgado, Richard (Professor at University of Alabama School of Law). "Official Elitism or
Institutional Self Interest-10 Reasons Why UC-Davis Should Abandon the LSAT (and Why Other Good
Law Schools Should Follow Suit)." UC Davis L. Rev. 34 (2000): 593.
Why do many minorities score poorly on these tests? As mentioned earlier, inferior schools, poverty, and lack of access to test prep courses are part of the reasons? But
the tests themselves share part of the blame as well. Many test questions presuppose knowledge that is only common in
middle or upper class white communities. as The Multi-State Bar Exam (MBE) and LSAT questions emphasize business and property
S9 concepts, not civil rights, minority history, or literature One study of the SAT found items requiring knowledge of golf, tennis, pirouettes,
property taxes, minuets, kettle drums, tympani, polo, and horseback riding,90 items that are scarcely common
in minority communities. A study of the LSAT showed reading passages disparaging W.E.B. Du Bois, Cesar Chavez, and Harriet Tubman91 Other LSAT
questions presupposed legal knowledge And, although the industry assumes that conditions are the same for all, admissions
officers have no way of knowing which applicants have taken a prep course, or whose scores reflect what Steele and Aronson
call stereotype threat. 93 Testing requires communication, which in turn requires understanding of language and situations. Test makers do not write test questions as
test writers, like all humans, reflect the culture and
culturally and socio-economically stripped, neutral beings. Rather,
surroundings in which they were raised. The situations and circumstances they incorporate into test
questions, and, more importantly, the meanings and thought patterns they deem "right" will inevitably
favor test takers who share those meanings and thought patterns.
 6. Testing imposes taxes on taxpayers and citizens - that’s a violation of freedom.
Quinn Mulholland, May 14, 2015, Harvard Politics, The Case Against Standardized Testing,
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/case-standardized-testing/ //SR
The law has come with a hefty price tag for taxpayers. A 2012 study by the Brookings Institution determined that states
spend $1.7 billion per year on testing, an enormous increase over the $423 million states spent in 2001 before
NCLB, according to the Pew Center on the States. All of this money has fueled a booming testing industry, with
companies like Pearson racking up billions in sales. A POLITICO investigation published on February 10, 2015 revealed that
Pearson receives tens of millions in taxpayer dollars even though there is “little proof its products and
services are effective.”

7. The tests are simply meant to filter students into colleges so that colleges can
make money and students can be turned into economically beneficial subjects.
This treats them as a means to an end for the state to make money and critiques
of the university would only affirm.
Hursh & Henderson 11 (Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures David W.
Hursh & Joseph A. Henderson Pages 171-185 | Published online: 13 Apr 2011
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01596306.2011.562665) //ThxKuhukIOweUOne:)
Contesting neoliberalism necessitates that we situate neoliberal policies within the larger neoliberal
discourse promoting markets, competition, individualism, and privatization. Analysing education policies
in the USA, whether the push for mayoral control in Rochester, New York, school reform policies under Renaissance 2010 in Chicago, or Race
to the Top under the Obama administration, requires that we understand how reforms such as using standardized
testing are presented as efficient, neutral responses to the problem of raising student achievement, rather
than examining the root causes of student failure, including lack of decent paying jobs and health care,
and under-funded schools. Current policies reinforce neoliberalism and leave the status quo intact. Similarly,
if we look at education in Sub-Saharan Africa, we must situate schools within the hollowing out of the state, and the lack of adequate funding for
education and other social services such as health care. For example, in Uganda, as in several other Sub-Saharan countries,
the global recession has contributed to drug shortages, making it impossible to treat the growing number of
AIDS patients (McNeil, 2010 McNeil , D.G. 2010 , May 9 . At front lines, AIDS war is falling apart . The New York Times , p. A-1 . [Google
Scholar]). Yet, under more social democratic policies the state would play a larger role in providing health car e.
Furthermore, education is increasingly contested, as the plutocracy promotes education as a means of producing
productive, rather than critical, employees. Schools are more often places where teachers and students
learn what will be on the test rather than seeking answers to questions that cry out for answers, such as how
to develop a healthy, sustainable environment or communities where people are actually valued for who
they are rather than what they contribute to the economy.

8. Colleges considering it creates a contradiction in conception since colleges

themselves can’t consider the test - the admissions officers would have to.
 Underview
1. Permissibility and presumption affirm
A) We have a natural belief towards the res. You naturally believe me if I tell you
my name is Shrey.
B) Affirming’s harder so if we’re equal on the flow I debated better from the 7-4-
6-3 time skew and aff speaks in the dark
C) AFF came in this round with offense so its neg’s fault for causing either of the
2

2. We get 1AR theory else the NEG could be infinitely abusive and we couldn’t check
it. Its drop the debater because the 1AR and 2AR are too short to win everything so
we need an extra layer to collapse to.

3. We get choice of framework

A) Strat Skew-- taking out AFF framework moots 6 minutes of my offense
B) Predictability-- They have 30 minutes to prep and adapt to my offense but I
have less than 4 minutes to adapt to theirs, AFF speaks in the dark
C) Topic Ed-- less framework debate means more on the substance on the rez
D) Phil ed-- philosophy’s only useful when deployed in the real world, that means
a resolutional discussion is key

4. Epistemic confidence
A) Collapses - you use confidence to determine whether modesty is true
B) Judge Intervention-- Measuring 60% in deont and 40 in util requires the judge
to aggregate between the 2

5. Theory outweighs K’s

A) Theory decides which arguments can be read thus logically precludes the K
B) Theory link turns abusive K’s because my opponent excludes me from the
debate
C) Good debate norms make K’s more fair thus accessible so we can better clash
on and discuss the K
D) Every arg concedes the authority of fairness because you want the judge to
evaluate your K
6. The ROB is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution via fair args under
an ethically justified framework. Truth testing first--
A) Textuality-- to affirm is “to say something is true” and to negate is to “deny the
truth of” thats Merriam-Webster for you.
B) All other paradigms collapse into truth-testing because all statements devolve
into truth and falsity.
C) To prove a statement true has objective meaning behind it while to meaning to
prove an action desirable begs the question of what is optimal
D) All other ROB’s exclude all strats except for yours - chills argumentation in
the debate space and prevents ethical discussion

7. Yes act-omission distinction-- there’s a difference between letting you die and
deliberately killing you otherwise you’d be responsible for everyone’s suffering in the
squo

8. Yes intent-foresight distinction-- terror bombing vs strategic bombing.

9. Ideal theory first

A) Its a prerequisite to non-ideal since non-ideal theorists must first imagine an
ideal world through an ideal conception of justice
B) The ballot won’t change the policy in the real world but non-ideal theory limits
us to a small scope of arguments-- we can discuss more through ideal theory
because you can imagine more than existence

10. No power in the ballot - prefer debate specific evidence

Ritter 13, Michael, JD UTexas Law, B.A. cum laude Trinity University. Debated for RR and Trinity.
September 2013. “Overcoming the Fiction of ‘Social Change Through Debate’: What’s to Learn From
2Pac’s Changes?” https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/9896ec_8b2b993ec42440ecaab1b07645385db5.pdf //SR
Up to this point, this article has shown how each of the essential components of “competitive interscholastic debate” makes it very different from
any other kind of debate. But one thing that is persuasive in any kind of debate is some sort of properly conducted
study (or even a mere survey) that provides empirical proof or even substantial anecdotal support. To date, none of
the many academics who coach or participate in the debate community have published a study or
survey to support the social change fiction. (Perhaps they have tried, and discovered they were just wrong.) But until such
an empirical study of competitive interscholastic debate is conducted, students, judges, and coaches should
not take it for granted.