| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,55 @@ |
|
1 |
+==3== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+====Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in the 1AC.==== |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+====Four types of IP that are vastly different.==== |
|
10 |
+**Ackerman 17** ~~Peter; Founder and CEO, Innovation Asset Group, Inc; "The 4 Main Types of Intellectual Property and Related Costs," Decipher; 1/6/17; https://www.innovation-asset.com/blog/the-4-main-types-of-intellectual-property-and-related-costs~~ Justin |
|
11 |
+Intellectual property protection isn’t as simple as declaring ownership of a particular product or asset |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+AND |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+weigh the competitive significance of your secrets against the cost of protecting them. |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+====Violation: they don’t==== |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+====Negate:==== |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+====1~~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what intellectual properties the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific IP DAs, IP PICs, and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing. ==== |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====CX can’t resolve this and is bad because A~~ Not flowed B~~ Skews 6 min of prep C~~ They can lie and no way to check D~~ Debaters can be shady. ==== |
|
32 |
+ |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+ |
|
35 |
+====2~~ Real World- policy makers will always specify what the object of change is. That outweighs since debate has no value without portable application. It also means zero solvency since the WTO, absent spec, can circumvent aff’s policy since they can say they didn’t know what was affected.==== |
|
36 |
+ |
|
37 |
+ |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+====This spec shell isn’t regressive- it literally determines what the affirmative implements and who it affects==== |
|
40 |
+ |
|
41 |
+ |
|
42 |
+ |
|
43 |
+====Fairness and education are voters – its how judges evaluate rounds and why schools fund debate==== |
|
44 |
+ |
|
45 |
+ |
|
46 |
+ |
|
47 |
+====Neg theory is DTD - 1ARs control the direction of the debate because it determines what the 2NR has to go for – DTD allows us some leeway in the round by having some control in the direction==== |
|
48 |
+ |
|
49 |
+ |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+====Competing interps – Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation – it also collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm==== |
|
52 |
+ |
|
53 |
+ |
|
54 |
+ |
|
55 |
+====No RVIs – A – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe B - Discourages checking real abuse which outweighs on norm-setting C – Encourages theory baiting – outweighs because if the shell is frivolous, they can beat it quickly ==== |