In Defence of Moral Error Theory

Moral error theorists typically accept two claims - one conceptual and one ontological - about moral facts. The conceptual claim is that moral facts are or entail facts about categorical reasons (and correspondingly that moral claims are or entail claims about categorical reason); the ontological claim is that there are no categorical reasons-and consequently no moral facts-in reality. I accept this version of moral error theory and I try to unpack what it amounts to in section 2. In the course of doing so I consider two preliminary objections that moral error theory is (probably) false because its implications are intuitively unacceptable (what I call the Moorean objection) and that the general motivation for moral error theory is self-undermining in that it rests on a hidden appeal to norms. | Direct Link to PDF

Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong

THE CENTRAL IDEA of this book is simple: we evolved a moral instinct, a capacity that naturally grows within each child, designed to generate rapid judgments about what is morally right or wrong based on an unconscious grammar of action. Part of this machinery was designed by the blind hand of Darwinian selection millions of years before our species evolved; other parts were added or upgraded over the evolutionary history of our species, and are unique both to humans and to our moral psychology. These ideas draw on insightsfrom another instinct: language. | Direct Link to PDF (e-book)

Oxford Studies in Metaethics

The full book is available online for free:Oxford Studies in Metaethics is designed to collect, on an annual basis, some of the best new work being done in the field of metaethics. I’m very pleased to be able to present this third volume, one that has managed so successfully to fulfill the aims envisioned for the series. | Direct Link to Book

Moral Judgment

i. Moral rules are held to have an objective, prescriptive force; they are notdependent on the authority of any individual or institution.ii. Moral rules are taken to hold generally, not just locally; they not only proscribebehavior here and now, but also in other countries and at other times in history.iii. Violations of moral rules involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rightshave been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice.iv. Violations of moral rules are typically more serious than violations ofconventional rules. | Direct Link to PDF

Boredom? ADHD?

John Plotz in the New York Times: Their Noonday Demons, and Ours

These days, when we try to get a fix on our wasted time, we use labels that run from the psychological (distraction, “mind-wandering” or “top-down processing deficit”) to the medical (A.D.H.D., hypoglycemia) to the ethical (laziness, poor work habits). But perhaps “acedia” is the label we need. After all, it afflicted those whose pursuits prefigured the routines of many workers in the postindustrial economy. Acedia’s sufferers were engaged in solitary, sedentary, cerebral effort toward a clear final goal — but a goal that could be reached only by crossing an open, empty field with few signposts. The empty field is the monk’s day of spiritual contemplation in a cell besieged by the demon acedia — or your afternoon in a coffee shop with tiptop Wi-Fi.

via

Obama/Clinton?

Nobel Prize winner and former US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, makes the case for the "natural" Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012:

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

via

The Boundaries of Justice

The overarching concern in the idea of justice is the need to have just relations with others—and even to have appropriate sentiments about others; and what motivates the search is the diagnosis of injustice in ongoing arrangements. In some cases, this might demand the need to change an existing boundary of sovereignty—a concern that motivated Hume’s staunchly anti-colonial position. (He once remarked, “Oh! How I long to see America and the East Indies revolted totally & finally.”) Or it might relate to the Humean recognition that as we expand trade and other relations with foreign countries, our sentiments as well as our reasoning have to take note of the recognition that “the boundaries of justice still grow larger,” without the necessity to place all the people involved in our conception of justice within the confines of one sovereign state.

Amartya Sen, in The National Review, "The Boundaries of Justice."

What Position Will Win the TOC?

First, I just want to give a shout-out to the Mountain Brook tournament in Birmingham. This is the second year I've been, and once again the hospitality and timeliness have been exceptional. Jeff Roberts really goes out of his way to bring good judges to the tournament and put on a good show (and the MB students do a great job keeping things running). If you live in the South and don't make it to this tournament, you're missing out!On to the substance of today's post: what position will win the TOC?

I'll try not to answer my own question (since I'm more interested in others' thoughts), but I will say this: debaters are doing themselves a strategic disservice by running away from the plausibly true positions on this topic. I describe the loss as a "strategic" one, because I'm reasonably certain that no one will be persuaded by pedagogical risks.

The debates that start off on dubious premises (thanks to ridiculous case positions) almost always become side-tracked by theoretical and procedural questions that can rarely be resolved predictably. This is especially true in elimination rounds against strong competitors—the marginal utility of a "non-stock" position is significantly diminished when assured that your opponent will either shift the debate to theory or respond with an even more "outside the box" argument. The race to the bottom of absurdity can quickly become a counterproductive exercise, or one that at best terminates in a coin-flip decision.

While I hesitate to make any predictions, I certainly hope that high-level debates will explore the contextually unique accounts of self-defense that tend to permeate this topic in real-world discussion. I believe that the most researched account of this issue can and should take center stage. Off-the-wall positions may be decisive in prelims and lesser tournaments, but the most consistently and universally successful positions are true ones.

What do you expect to see come out on top?

Three Judging Practices That Need To Stop by Adam Torson

All of these practices are tempting, but a moment’s reflection should suggest to most judges that they are inappropriate.

1. Speaker Point Games

Enough with the paradigms that promise increased speaker points for goofy behavior. You might think it’s hysterical to promise a thirty for bringing you a cookie, saying “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” or dancing a jig, but it’s not. Judging is not about you – the debaters aren’t there for your entertainment.

If it were harmless fun nobody would care, but speaker points matter. They affect who you debate in prelims (especially later in a tournament when brackets are smaller), whether you break, and out-round seeding. On more than one occasion I have seen a speaker point game change who breaks and who doesn’t. It’s not fair, and it should stop.

2. Berating Debaters

A certain amount of irritation at poorly debated rounds is natural, but it’s stunning how often judges go way over the top. Expressing outrage at the state of debate or the obnoxiousness of some particular practice may be cathartic, but it’s hardly constructive. Getting angry and berating debaters is self-indulgent; the oral critique is not about your anger. It is reprehensible to be proud of making a debater cry.

Sometimes anger is appropriate, as when a debater is rude or patently offensive, but this is relatively rare. Yelling at someone because they made an argument you don’t like suggests a dramatic lack of perspective – the kids are learning what a good argument is, people have different views on what a good argument is, and students are coached in different ways. The RFD is not about showing off how smart you are or how much you know about debate. Get over yourself and make your comments constructive. You are not entitled to adjudicate a tournament full of mistake free rounds.

3. Calling Tons of Evidence

Everyone seems to want debaters to be clearer, but many of us engage in a practice that incentivizes exactly the opposite. The debaters’ opportunity to effectively convey the meaning of their evidence is the constructive. Figuring out what evidence means after the round and making it part of the decision calculus is blatant intervention. There are judges who routinely call virtually every argument read in the round and reconstruct their flow on that basis. Give me a break.

I suspect this is mostly motivated by ego – none of us likes to admit that we didn’t understand an argument. But – I feel like a broken record – it’s not about you. It is unfair and pedagogically unsound to vote for arguments you straight up don’t understand – even more so when you are doing things like supplying evidence comparison for the debaters. Have enough courage to admit when you don’t get something, even at the risk of teenagers thinking you’re not as smart as they otherwise would.

Harvard College World Schools Invitational

Three reasons you should consider attending the Harvard College World Schools Invitational from March 24 - March 26, 2017:

1. This will be the best-judged World Schools Tournament in the Western Hemisphere. We have two WSDC champions, two runner-ups, numerous outround participants, and other former competitors on our team that will be judging, as well as people who have coached breaking WSDC teams over the past two years. In international British Parliamentary debate (the most similar debate style to WSDC in the collegiate format), we have won Worlds twice and been in finals once over the past three years. We will also have teams and coaches from the UK, Canada, Hong Kong, China, Peru, and other countries competing and judging at our tournament as well.

2. This is a great opportunity for aspiring members of the USA Debate Team. For students thinking about trying out for the USA Debate Team, this is a great chance for them to become familiar with the format and potentially add an impressive competitive success to their debate resume. Additionally, USA Debate will be sending competitors to our tournament, and four current Harvard students (Danny DeBois, Tiana Menon, Amelia Miller, and Julia Lauer) are also alumni of the USA Debate Team. We will also likely have other USA Debate Alumni judging as well.

3. This presents a unique opportunity to grow the World Schools-style format in the United States. Most (if not all) other U.S. tournaments with WS divisions tend to also have divisions in other U.S. formats, meaning many talented debaters and judges never try out the new format because they stick to what they know best. This tournament will only have a WS division, and it will be during a time of the year when there aren't many other national circuit tournaments occurring. World Schools debate teaches current events knowledge, communication skills, impromptu argument generation, and teamwork in a way that many other U.S. formats do not, which is why the National Speech and Debate Association has invested so much in it. No prior experience in World Schools is required to attend, and we will be giving out awards for novices in the format as well. 

We hope you'll consider attending! You can register on tabroom here: http://hcwsi2017.tabroom.com

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact Tiana Menon at tianamenon@college.harvard.edu or Danny DeBois at deboisd@gmail.com. 

Murrah Wins Holy Cross

Congratulations to Murrah JS for winning the Holy Cross tournament. In finals, they defeated Desoto Central NN on a close 2-1 decision (Spear, Chillis, Beeson*). Congratulations to both Murrah and Desoto Central for also receiving bids to the 2017 Tournament of Champions.Full results can be found here.

Eagan Claims The Mid-America Cup

Congratulations to Raj Purohit and Rylee Smith from Eagan for winning the 2016 Mid-America Cup. In finals, they defeated James Madison Memorial’s Peter Yang and Jack Votava on a 2-1 decision.The following teams also received bids to the 2017 Tournament of Champions:Blake GYBlake LMEagan PSJames Madison Memorial YVEagan FS (ghost)Genevieve Wade from Evanston was awarded top speaker.Full results can be found here.

Ardrey Kell Closes Out Yale

Congratulations to Ardrey Kell’s Samuel Wood, Harish Korrapati, Michael Xing, and Callan Hazeldine for closing out the final round of the 2016 Yale Invitational.Additionally, congratulations are due to the following teams for receiving bids to the 2017 Tournament of Champions.Ardrey Kell KWArdrey Kell HXDalton FUEvanston Township BAHorace Mann FRHorace Mann KSHunter MPLincoln-Sudbury SWNewton South DSNueva ATNueva CPNueva MSOakwood FOSouthlake Carroll FPStrath Haven LSTrinity Prep PTCongratulations to Horace Mann’s Ella Feiner for receiving the Top Speaker.

Full results can be found here.

Hockaday Women's RR Update

Hockaday coach Jordan Innerarity writes in that the Hockaday Women's RR will now be Nov 10th and 11th. The full tournament starts on the 11th and runs through the 12th. Here is a link to the RR and tournament registration: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/hockaday/info.asp?p=7

We would like to invite all interested women to attend the Hockaday Women’s Round Robin November 10th and 11th. The round robin is open to all women who are eligible to debate on the high school level. We will keep invitations open until the robin round is full for a total of 24 entries.Each applicant should have her coach enter her through Joy of Tournaments. All applicants are waitlisted automatically. Entries will be moved off the waitlist as we receive email confirmation and associated information.There is no entry fee for attending the round robin and each participant is guaranteed entry into the Hockaday Invitational. We would be appreciative if each entry has a judge to help us ensure a large and diverse pool.ScheduleNovember 10th7:30- Light Breakfast8:00- Round 110:00- Round 212:00- Lunch1:00- Round 33:00- Round 45:00- Dinner6:00- Women’s RoundtableNovember 11th7:30- Light Breakfast8:00- Round 510:00- Semifinals11:00- Finals12:00- Awards Lunch

Bennett Eckert Wins the 2016 NSDA National Tournament

Congratulations to Bennett Eckert of The Greenhill School (TX) and his coach Aaron Timmons for winning the 2016 NSDA National Tournament in LD. Bennett defeated Millard North's Priya Kukreja on an 8-7 decision. Congratulations to both debaters and their coaches on an excellent tournament! Bennet is a former VBI camper and will be teaching at VBI this summer.

Accepted TOC At-Large Bids Announced

Lexington, KY -- The University of Kentucky has announced the first wave of accepted at-large bids for Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. Congratulations to the recipients!

Lincoln Douglas at Larges Accepted---TOC 2016

Apple Valley                      Prince HyeamangBrentwood                          Jacob ReiterByram Hills                        Alex WurmHawken                               Nicole KastelicInterlake                             Alisa LiuLake Highland Prep          Muhammad KhattakLake Highland Prep          Rithvik SeelaLynbrook                            Varun VenkateshMission San Jose               Prachit BhikePalos Verdes Peninsula    Ishan GaurScarsdale                            Samara JacobsonStrake Jesuit                       Richard CookStrake Jesuit                       Kyle Fennessy 

Public Forum at Larges Accepted---TOC 2016

American Heritage-Plantation       Platovsky/ParkerArdrey Kell                                       Korrapati/XingBronx School                                    Giovannelli/KochColleyville Heritage                        Nutt/LeventisHarker                                                Ketineni/LiuJames Madison Memorial               Votava/YangPlano Senior                                      Khanolkar/ZhaoUniversity School                            Wesorick/SchoonmakerUniversity School                            Taber/FrankelWalt Whitman                                  Mehrtora/McCartin

Good luck to VBI alumni and instructors competing at CEDA & NDT!

Much of the innovation in contemporary LD is driven by intercollegiate debaters and coaches. This weekend is the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Championship, followed by the National Debate Tournament (NDT)—the two largest intercollegiate debate championships in the U.S. We wish the best of luck to the VBI alumni and instructors who will be competing at CEDA and the NDT. (Sorry if we missed anyone below!)Elana Quint (Arizona State), Lawrence Zhou (Oklahoma), Nicole Nave (Rutgers–Newark), and Devane Murphy (Rutgers–Newark) will be competing at CEDA Nationals. Christian Quiroz (Rutgers–Newark) and Arjun Tambe (Stanford) will be competing at the NDT, in addition to Nicole and Devane, who received first-round bids. Nicole also cleared at CEDA and the NDT last year.Carlos Astacio will be coaching Rutgers–Newark. Elijah Smith (past winner of both CEDA and the NDT) will be coaching Wake Forest.Other college policy debaters and coaches (past and present) on VBI staff include Eric Beane (Houston), Adegoke Fakorede (Rutgers-Newark), Michael Mangus (Pittsburgh), SunHee Simon-Mbong (Stanford), Nick Tourville (Minnesota), and Chris Vincent (Louisville; Louisiana State).Check out the rest of our amazing faculty.