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.

Gearing up for Greenhill: An Interview with 2013 Champion, Shania Hunt

 Recently I spoke with 2013 Greenhill Champion Shania Hunt about the unique challenges the tournament offers and what she is up to now. During the course of our discussion Shania offers some great advice about preparing for the tournament and how to turn mandatory disclosure to your advantage, among other things.[soundcloud params="auto_play=false&show_comments=false&show_playcount=false&sharing=true&download=true&"]https://soundcloud.com/victory-briefs/gearing-up-for-greenhill-an-interview-with-shania-hunt[/soundcloud] 

Greenhill Round Robin Pods Announced

[vc_row][vc_column width="1/1"][vc_column_text]

[ezcol_1half]Duby Pod[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Smogard Pod[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Grapevine - Alexander Yoakum[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Clements - Rebecca Gelfer[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]Greenhill - School Bennett Eckert[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Greenhill School - Mitali Mathur[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]The Harker School - Pranav Reddy[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Harvard Westlake - Cameron Cohen[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]The Hockaday School - Anne-Marie Hwang[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Law Magnet - Dino De La O[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]Northland Christian - Davis LaBarre [/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Lexington - Preetham Chippada[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]Peninsula - Akhil Jalan[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Newark Science - Sun Hee Simon[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]Theodore Roosevelt - Emma Weddle[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Peninsula - Arjun Tambe[/ezcol_1half_end][ezcol_1half]Westwood - Akhil Gandra[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Sacred Heart - Adam Tomasi[/ezcol_1half_end][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Pranav Reddy Tops National Debate Rankings, Brentwood Top Squad

Our new ranking system, compiled by Jeb Puryear (creator of the National Debate Rankings), is now live! Pranav Reddy (Harker '15, VBI '11, '12, '13) is ranked #1. Brentwood leads the squad rankings with ten debaters in the top 300 and eight in the top 100.

Akhil Jalan Wins the 2014 Loyola Invitational

[vc_row][vc_column width="1/1"][vc_column_text] Congratulations to Akhil Jalan of Peninsula for winning the Loyola Invitational. He advanced over Shivane Sabharwal of Fremont because Shivane had to leave early. Akhil is coached by Scott Wheeler and Chris Theis. Shivane is coached by Michael Harris.The Loyola Invitational is a semifinals level bid to the TOC that takes place on September 12-14 in beautiful Los Angeles, California. Stay tuned for results, discussion, pairings, and live updates throughout the weekend. Please feel free to share updates on records and comments/thoughts relating to the tournament.The pairings can be found here.Prelim results/records can be found here. Doubles:

Los Altos JN vs Meadows MS (Dharani, Harris, Bistagne)

Miramonte TK vs Oregon Episcopal School (OES) SL (Dharani, Saluja, Roke)

Jmhsdebate DD vs Peninsula JL (Overing, Damerdji, Shmikler)

Oakwood Secondary JW vs FSHA (Flintridge) MC (Wheeler, Chen, Shmikler)

Del Mar Independent VB vs Immaculate Heart LM (Walton, Knell, Fife)

Crossroads NS vs Brentwood CH (Walton, Bistagne, Damerdji)

La Canada AZ vs Marlborough AG (Placido, Helali, Peiris)

Del Mar Independent SS vs Peninsula KK (Ahsan, Harris, Placido)

Harvard-Westlake NS vs Chaminade CP BS (Torson, Alderete, Chen)

Chaminade CP JC vs Servite RD (Ettington, Torson, Fife)

Brentwood JR over Brentwood JC

Peninsula AJ advances without debating

Lynbrook DW over Lynbrook SS

Brentwood JL advances without debating

Peninsula AT advances without debating

Fremont SS advances without debating Octafinals:Harvard Westlake NS vs La Canada AZ (Ahsan, Torson, Chen)Servite RD vs Lynbrook DW (Fife, Saluja, Helali)Oakwood Secondary JW vs Miramonte TK (Walton, Harris, Roke)Los Altos JN vs Fremont SS (Dharani, Placido, Shmikler)Brentwood JL over Brentwood JRPeninsula AT over Peninsula JLPeninsula AJ over Peninsula KK Quarters:Brentwood JL vs Harvard-Westlake (Walton, Wheeler, Bistagne)Lynbrooks Debate DW vs Peninsula AJ (Ahsan, Fife, Chen)Fremont SS vs Miramonte TK (Dharani, Roke, Helali)Peninsula AT vs Del Mar Independent VB (Torson, Harris, Shmikler) Semifinals:Peninsula AJ def Brentwood JL 3-0 (Fife, Neesen, Overing)Fremont SS def Peninsula AT 3-0 (Chen, Dharani, Shmikler) Finals:Peninsula AJ over Fremont SS (Fremont SS had to depart early) Top 10 Speakers:1. Akhil Jalan (Peninsula)2. Arjun Tambe (Peninsula)3. Shivane Sabharwal (Fremont)4. Varun Bhave (Del Mar Independent)5. Jackson Lallas (Brentwood)6. Dhruv Walia (Lynbrooks Debate)7. Nick Steele (Harvard-Westlake)8. Alexander Zhao (La Canada)9. Jeremiah Cha (Chaminade)10. Tom Kadie (Miramonte)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Akhil Gandra Wins the 2014 Grapevine Classic

[vc_row][vc_column width="1/1"][vc_column_text]  Grapevine, TX - Congratulations to Akhil Gandra of Westwood for winning the 2014 Grapevine Classic. In finals he defeated Drew Burd of Westlake on a 2-1 decision (*Sims, Melin, Zhou). Akhil is coached by Rodrigo Paramo; Drew is coached by Benjamin Koh.The Grapevine Classic is a semifinals level bid to the TOC that takes place on September 12-13 in sunny Grapevine, Texas. Stay tuned for results, discussion, pairings, and live updates throughout the weekend. Please feel free to share updates on records and comments/thoughts relating to the tournament.It took a 3-2 record with 86.2 adjusted speaks in order to advance to elim rounds. Congratulations to those who broke! Doubles:Westwood AG def Flower Mound HD 2-1 (*Gunn, Castillo, Wright)Marcus LH def Kincaid eh 3-0 (Wright, Castillo, Gunn)Woodlands AC def Colleyville AC 3-0 (Zhou, Graham, Emerson)Westlake DB def Plano East SA 3-0 (Zhou, Graham, Emerson)Strake SM def Liberty Christian BS 3-0 (Hodge, Wei, Pietsche)Hockaday AH def Strake RC 3-0 (Hodge, Wei, Pietsch)Westwood SN def Kinkaid TG 2-1 (Sims, *Acevedo, Boyer)Calhoun Home AC def Flower Mound AZ 2-1 (Sims, *Acevedo, Boyer)St. Thomas JB def Flower Mound JS 2-1 (Henson, *Woods, Sell)Woodlands College Par VM def Dulles KL 2-1 (McCabe, *Harrison, Beard)Strake AnTo def Dulles SA 3-0 (Melin, Sullivan, Popatia)Strake JZ def Katy Taylor NY 2-1 (Melin, Sullivan, *Popatia)Kinkaid NK def Edmond Santa Fe IM 2-1 (*Tripe, Paarman, Zhang)Law Magnet DD def Monsignor Kelly MM 3-0 (Paarman, Tripe, Cullum)Strake AT def Greenhill MM 3-0 (Paramo, Sharma, Shivji)Greenhill BE def Cedar Ridge RP 3-0 (Paramo, Sharma, Shivji) Octafinals:Strake AT def Law Magnet DD 2-1 (Zhang, *Melin, Maniguet)Westwood AG def Kinkaid NK 3-0 (Henson, Wright, Sharma)Woodlands AC def Strake JZ 2-1 (Zhu, Popatia, *Cullum)Westlake DB def Strake SM 2-1 (Sims, *Pietsch, Hodge)Hockaday AH def Westwood SN 2-1 (Zhou, *Acevedo, Woods)Calhoun Home AC def St Thomas JB 2-1 (Sheth, *Beane, Boyer)Greenhill BE def Strake AnTo 3-0 (Shivji, Paramo, Nair)Marcus LH def Woodlands College Par VM 2-1 (*Wei, Castillo, Graham) 

Quarterfinals:

Marcus LH def Strake AT 2-1 (Graham, *Zhu, Wright)Westwood AG def Greenhill BE 3-0 (Sharma, Woods, Maniguet)Woodlands AC def Calhoun Home AC 3-0 (Sims, Hodge, Melin)Westlake DB def Hockaday AH 2-1 (Castillo, *Wei, Acevedo) Semifinals:Westlake DB def Marcus LH 3-0 (Sims, Castillo, Hodge)Westwood AG def Woodlands AC 3-0 (Wei, Sharma, Melin) Finals:Westwood AG def Westlake DB 2-1 (*Sims, Melin, Zhou) Top 10 Speakers:1. Alberto Tohme (Strake Jesuit College AT)2. Akhil Gandra (Westwood AG)3. Bennett Eckert (Greenhill BE)4. Abbey Chapman (Woodlands AC)5. Venkatesh Muppaneni (Woodlands College Par VM)6. Raunak Pillai (Cedar Ridge RP)7. Kathie Lin (Dulles KL)8. Lyndie Ho (Marcus LH)9. Sean McCormick (Strake Jesuit College SM)10. Anthony Tohme (Strake Jesuit AnTo)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

In Defense of Tournament-Required Disclosure

Danny DeBois (Harvard ’18) debated for Harrison High School in New York for 4 years. He won the TOC, NCFL Grand Nationals, Glenbrooks, and the Harvard Invitational (twice). He is now an assistant coach at Harvard-Westlake in California. He attended VBI twice as a student and is now an instructor there.With Greenhill around the corner, debaters attending should keep in mind that this tournament requires disclosure of case positions on the NDCA wiki (found here: http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/). For those unfamiliar with the practice, this entails putting up a page that includes taglines, citations, and the first and last three words of cards (though some debaters opt to put up full text) of any position that a debater has read on the topic so far. While disclosure has become more common on the national circuit over the last few years, mandatory disclosure at tournaments has not. I will present the case for why more tournaments should enforce mandatory disclosure policies.As a debater, I attended the Greenhill tournament twice, disclosing case positions there, but at no other tournaments except the 2014 TOC. While I personally preferred not to disclose when it was optional, I think a system of tournament-mandated disclosure is ideal for a couple of reasons.Firstly, it is the most effective way to create transparency in arguments being run. Disclosure is traditionally justified for the following reasons: Debaters will be able to know what arguments are being run on the topic and prepare accordingly, ensuring that the substantively better position, rather than the more surprising position, wins. Additionally, debaters are less likely to get away with miscut evidence; since opponents can check cites and call debaters out if they see that a card is cut out of context. Finally, access to “intel” on other debaters shouldn’t be contingent on whether you have five coaches, one of whose job is to cover your judging obligation, another to scout your biggest competition in every prelim round, and the other three to sit behind your judges and intimidate them. The wiki is defended on the grounds that it allows every debater, regardless of resources, to find out what they might have to debate in a future round. Accordingly, making everyone disclose as a requirement of tournament participation would maximize the benefits of disclosure.Debaters often don’t disclose for strategic reasons—they’re worried about getting prepped out, or having people copy their positions. While that’s definitely a risk, those problems are already happening in the status quo. Last year, I and many other people heard the same exact Chinese Econ DA in a bunch of different rounds. I’m sure debaters who regularly disclosed hit frequent prepouts as well. I think the best solution to these current problems, however, is to have more disclosure, rather than less. When everyone discloses (like at the Greenhill tournament), people can access every case on the wiki, not just some debaters’. As a result, a prep out becomes less likely just because there’s limited time to prep arguments, but there are so many positions up on the wiki. While this is just anecdotal evidence that should be taken with a grain of salt, I didn’t face the problem of a “massive” prep out at Greenhill either year I attended—worst case, people had a couple of more on-case responses, but they were usually generic blocks that would have been read anyways. Additionally, with so many different positions on the wiki, if position “copying” does occur, at least there are a wider variety of positions to copy, instead of just the cases of three or four teams.However, disclosure is hotly contested, and avid opponents of disclosure are probably not happy with the justifications I’ve presented so far, which leads me to my last justification for mandatory disclosure—it’s the best enforcement mechanism for disclosure compared to the alternatives currently used.Two current alternatives to tournament-required disclosure include disclosure theory (a theory argument claiming you should lose for not uploading your positions to the NDCA wiki) and LDLeaks (http://ldleaks.vbriefly.com//), a website where members can upload flows of other people on the circuit for other members to see. Neither alternative seems enjoyable, but unless tournaments mandate disclosure, they’ll continue. Disclosure theory is problematic because disclosure is often something judges have strong opinions on, and many decisions come down to judges voting for the side they personally agree with. Additionally, debaters who run disclosure theory haven’t stopped running it (if anything, it became more common over the past season), and unsubstantive rounds with disclosure theory are definitely worse than rounds where debaters prepped out each other’s positions and had a debate with a lot of clash.LDLeaks seems less preferable to mandatory disclosure, since it’s run by students and is members only, whereas mandatory disclosure would be open to everyone while still avoiding the problem of “free-riding” because tournaments would punish people who don’t post on the wiki.What do people think?UPDATE: Sign Danny's petition to require disclosure at national LD tournaments!

Bennett Eckert wins the Plano Senior Fall Classic

Congratulations to Greenhill's Bennett Eckert for winning the 2014 Plano Senior Fall Classic in Plano, Texas! In finals he defeated Grapevine's Alex Yoakum on a 3-0 decision (Kris Wright, Aabid Shivji, and John Smith). Here are the elimination round results for the 2014 Plano Senior Fall Classic: Octafinals:Law Magnet DD def. Plano East AK (Aimun Khan)Colleyville AC def. Law Magnet JM (Juan Martinez)Grapevine AY def. Marcus LH (Lyndie Ho)Colleyville RC def. Law Magnet MH (Maria Hernandez)Greenhill BE def. Coppel PS (Prinon Shahed)Liberty Christian BS def. Colleyville SS (Shahnoor Semy)All Saints Episcopal NF def. Keller NH (Nick Hadsell)Guyer RS def. Southlake KP (Keya Patel) Quarters:Law Magnet DD def. Liberty Christian BS (Breann Smith)Grapevine AY def. Guyer RS (Riley Steward)Colleyville AC def. All Saints Episcopal NF (Noah Fanous)Greenhill BE def. Colleyville RC (Rachana Kolli)  Semis:Grapevine AY def. Law Magent DD (Dino De La O)Greenhill BE def. Colleyville (Alizah Charaniya) Finals:Greenhill BE def. Grapevine AY (Alex Yoakum) Champion:Greenhill BE (Bennett Eckert)

Minneapple Registration Open and Announcing the 1st Annual Minneapple Round Robin

Registration for this year's Minneapple Debate Tournament at Apple Valley High School in Apple Valley, MN on November 7-8 is now open on www.joyoftournaments.com.The tournament offers an Octafinals Bid to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum and the Top Six in Congressional Debate. The tournament also features Novice and JV Lincoln Douglas Debate and (new to this year's tournament) a Novice Division of Public Forum. We have also added a Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debate Round Robin on November 9th, 2014. Questions about this event should be sent to Chris Theis, our Round Robin Director at chris.theis@district196.org Once again, the tournament features high quality efficiency, hospitality and awards galore.... including the highly coveted red marble apple. Space is already filling up and we have many red marble apples looking for homes!Sincerely,Colin GoodsonMinneapple Tournament DirectorColin.Goodson@district196.org