Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Newman Smith VY | Judge: Vijayan, Pranav
2:07
Interpretation: Medicines is a generic bare plural. The aff cannot defend a specific subset of medicines and thus affirm the resolution.
Violation: They defend a subset of drugs ~insert plan mandate here~
Jake Nebel, 8-12-2019, "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution," VBriefly, https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/ ~Jake Nebel is~ an assistant professor of philosophy at USC. ~He works~ mostly on questions in normative ethics and the theory of value. ear
"Colleges and universities," "standardized tests," and "undergraduate admissions decisions" are bare plural noun phrases. A bare plural is a noun phrase that lacks an overt determiner. Determiners include articles like the, possessives like my, demonstratives like these, and quantifiers like some. "Colleges and universities," "standardized tests," and "undergraduate admissions decisions" are plural, and they lack determiners, so they are bare plurals. ("Colleges" and "universities" are also bare plurals, but it doesn't matter for our purposes whether we consider them separately or just consider the conjunctive noun phrase.) Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations. Generic generalizations include sentences like, "Dogs bark," "Bees sting," and "Birds fly." It is helpful to understand generic generalizations by contrasting them with two other kinds of generalizations. Existential statements say that there exist some things that satisfy a certain property. For example, "Some bees don't sting" is an existential statement. It is true because there are indeed some bees that don't sting. Existential statements can be affirmed by pointing to particular examples—e.g., mason bees. Universal statements say that all things satisfy a certain property. For example, "All bees sting" is a universal statement. It is false because, as we just saw, some bees don't sting—so it's not the case that all of them do. Universal statements cannot be affirmed by pointing to particular examples, but they can be negated by pointing to particular counterexamples—again, e.g., mason bees. Generic generalizations are neither existential nor universal. Generics are distinct from existential statements because they cannot be affirmed by particular instances. For example, "Birds swim" is a generic. It's false even though there are some birds that do swim: namely, penguins. You can't affirm that birds swim by observing that penguins swim. Generics are distinct from universal statements because they can tolerate exceptions. For example, "Birds fly" is a generic. It's true even though there are some birds that don't fly: namely, penguins. You can't negate that birds fly by observing that penguins don't. Both distinctions are important. Generic resolutions can't be affirmed by specifying particular instances. But, since generics tolerate exceptions, plan-inclusive counterplans (PICs) do not negate generic resolutions. Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations. But there are two important things to keep in mind. First, generic generalizations are also often expressed via other means (e.g., definite singulars, indefinite singulars, and bare singulars). Second, and more importantly for present purposes, bare plurals can also be used to express existential generalizations. For example, "Birds are singing outside my window" is true just in case there are some birds singing outside my window; it doesn't require birds in general to be singing outside my window. So, what about "colleges and universities," "standardized tests," and "undergraduate admissions decisions"? Are they generic or existential bare plurals? On other topics I have taken great pains to point out that their bare plurals are generic—because, well, they are. On this topic, though, I think the answer is a bit more nuanced. Let's see why. 1.1 "Colleges and Universities" "Colleges and universities" is a generic bare plural. I don't think this claim should require any argument, when you think about it, but here are a few reasons. First, ask yourself, honestly, whether the following speech sounds good to you: "Eight colleges and universities—namely, those in the Ivy League—ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Maybe other colleges and universities ought to consider them, but not the Ivies. Therefore, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions." That is obviously not a valid argument: the conclusion does not follow. Anyone who sincerely believes that it is valid argument is, to be charitable, deeply confused. But the inference above would be good if "colleges and universities" in the resolution were existential. By way of contrast: "Eight birds are singing outside my window. Maybe lots of birds aren't singing outside my window, but eight birds are. Therefore, birds are singing outside my window." Since the bare plural "birds" in the conclusion gets an existential reading, the conclusion follows from the premise that eight birds are singing outside my window: "eight" entails "some." If the resolution were existential with respect to "colleges and universities," then the Ivy League argument above would be a valid inference. Since it's not a valid inference, "colleges and universities" must be a generic bare plural. Second, "colleges and universities" fails the upward-entailment test for existential uses of bare plurals. Consider the sentence, "Lima beans are on my plate." This sentence expresses an existential statement that is true just in case there are some lima beans on my plate. One test of this is that it entails the more general sentence, "Beans are on my plate." Now consider the sentence, "Colleges and universities ought not consider the SAT." (To isolate "colleges and universities," I've eliminated the other bare plurals in the resolution; it cannot plausibly be generic in the isolated case but existential in the resolution.) This sentence does not entail the more general statement that educational institutions ought not consider the SAT. This shows that "colleges and universities" is generic, because it fails the upward-entailment test for existential bare plurals. Third, "colleges and universities" fails the adverb of quantification test for existential bare plurals. Consider the sentence, "Dogs are barking outside my window." This sentence expresses an existential statement that is true just in case there are some dogs barking outside my window. One test of this appeals to the drastic change of meaning caused by inserting any adverb of quantification (e.g., always, sometimes, generally, often, seldom, never, ever). You cannot add any such adverb into the sentence without drastically changing its meaning. To apply this test to the resolution, let's again isolate the bare plural subject: "Colleges and universities ought not consider the SAT." Adding generally ("Colleges and universities generally ought not consider the SAT") or ever ("Colleges and universities ought not ever consider the SAT") result in comparatively minor changes of meaning. (Note that this test doesn't require there to be no change of meaning and doesn't have to work for every adverb of quantification.) This strongly suggests what we already know: that "colleges and universities" is generic rather than existential in the resolution. Fourth, it is extremely unlikely that the topic committee would have written the resolution with the existential interpretation of "colleges and universities" in mind. If they intended the existential interpretation, they would have added explicit existential quantifiers like "some." No such addition would be necessary or expected for the generic interpretation since generics lack explicit quantifiers by default. The topic committee's likely intentions are not decisive, but they strongly suggest that the generic interpretation is correct, since it's prima facie unlikely that a committee charged with writing a sentence to be debated would be so badly mistaken about what their sentence means (which they would be if they intended the existential interpretation). The committee, moreover, does not write resolutions for the 0.1 percent of debaters who debate on the national circuit; they write resolutions, at least in large part, to be debated by the vast majority of students on the vast majority of circuits, who would take the resolution to be (pretty obviously, I'd imagine) generic with respect to "colleges and universities," given its face-value meaning and standard expectations about what LD resolutions tend to mean.
Standards
Infinitely Regressive: There is no threshold for how much the aff can specify. It would kill limits and predictability because there are an infinite number of case combinations available.
Time-Skew: The spec lets the aff co-opt out of the
AND
, but fairness outweighs education because we can gain it in other forums.
Drop the Arg
Aff reasos.
No RVIs
The opponent shouldn't win for being fair; Illogical to turn defensive
AND
to the top by promoting better norms
Builds advocacy skills in theory debate
Substandard Drugs DA
Brink: 10 of all drugs in developing countries are substandard; Breman 19
Breman, Joel (C. Dr. Breman was educated at the University of California, Los Angeles; Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC); and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He trained in internal medicine at the USC-Los Angeles County Medical Center, infectious diseases at the Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, and epidemiology at CDC. He is Senior Scientist Emeritus, NIH and President-Elect, the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Dr. Breman worked on smallpox eradication, measles control, and disease surveillance as a CDC assignee to Guinea, Burkina Faso (Upper Volta), and WHO, Geneva. Following the eradication of smallpox, Breman returned to CDC where he worked on malaria treatment, epidemiology and control in Africa. In 1995, he followed his wife, an environmental lawyer, to Washington, DC, to become Director, Program in Emerging Infectious Diseases, Fogarty International Center, NIH.). "It's time to stop murder by counterfeit medicine." STAT, 2019, May 7, https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/07/stopping-murder-counterfeit-medicine/ Accessed 30 Aug. 2021.
Each year, more than 250,000 children with malaria and pneumonia, common
AND
the have well-defined judicial actions once criminals are suspected or identified.
Link: IP protections are a essential barrier to fight counterfeit medicine and substandard drugs; Lybecker, 16
Lybecker, Kristina M (C. Dr. Kristina M. Lybecker is an Associate Professor of Economics at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, where she is also the Associate Chair of the Department of Economics and Business and the Gerald L. Schlessman Professor of Economics. She has testified numerous times on the economics of the importation of Canadian drugs and the risks of pharmaceutical counterfeiting. Dr. Lybecker has also worked with US Food and Drug Administration, PhRMA, and the World Bank, on a variety of issues relating to the economics of innovation and international trade policies.) "Counterfeit Medicines and the Role of IP in Patient Safety." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, IPWatchdog, 27 June 2016, www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/27/counterfeit-medicines-ip-patient-safety/id=70397/.
As the author of the chapter on illicit trade in counterfeit medicines within the OECD
AND
effective intellectual property protection; due regard is not paid to quality assurance".
Mercurio, Bryan (C.Bryan Mercurio is the Simon F.S. Li Professor of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), having served as Associate Dean (Research) from 2010-14 and again from 2017-19. Professor Mercurio specialises in international economic law (IEL), with particular expertise in the intersection between trade law and intellectual property rights, free trade agreements, trade in services, dispute settlement and increasingly international investment law.) "The IP Waiver for COVID-19: Bad Policy, Bad Precedent." IIC; international review of industrial property and copyright law, 1-6. 24 Jun. 2021, doi:10.1007/s40319-021-01083-5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223179/
Alan Beattie, writing in the Financial Times, believes that even the proponents of
AND
manufacturing capabilities exist and find ways to exploit them and scale them up.