| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | 2 | Valley JS | Connor self |
|
|
| |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | 3 | San Mateo YR | Jeong Wan Choi |
|
|
| |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Triples | Catonsville AT | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Doubles | Lexington JB | panel |
|
|
| |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 3 | Harrison AC | Aaron Barcio |
|
|
| |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 4 | Westlake MR | Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 6 | Southlake Carroll SD | Arya Goel |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Millard North EB | Chris Theis |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Sequoia AS | Breigh Plat |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Lexington AK | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| TFA STATE | 2 | La Vernia JR | Devin Hernandez |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 3 | Memorial BD | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | 6 | Westwood PP | Isaac Chao |
|
|
| |
| TFA State | Triples | Westwood PM | panel |
|
|
| |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 2 | Westwood AR | Isaac Chao |
|
|
| |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 3 | Westwood PM | Vishal Sivamani |
|
|
| |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 3 | Westwood PM | Vishal Sivamani |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 2 | Immaculate Heart RR | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 3 | Westwood AY | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 5 | Sage MP | Sreyaash Das |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Triples | Carnegie Vanguard LH | Panel |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | Doubles | Immaculate Heart BC | Ishan Rereddy, Aaron Barcio, Jugal Amodwala |
|
|
| |
| any | 1 | any | any |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | 2 | Opponent: Valley JS | Judge: Connor self 1ac - locke |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Jeong Wan Choi 1ac - evergreening |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Triples | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Truman Le 1ac - bioterror |
| GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Doubles | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: panel 1ac - korsgaard |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 3 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Aaron Barcio 1ac - biocolinization |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 4 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1ac - evergreening |
| GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Arya Goel 1ac - cannabis |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Millard North EB | Judge: Chris Theis 1ac - structural violence |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Breigh Plat 1ac - biopiracy |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1ac - waiver |
| TFA STATE | 2 | Opponent: La Vernia JR | Judge: Devin Hernandez 1ac - stock |
| TFA State | 3 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1ac - pragmatism |
| TFA State | 6 | Opponent: Westwood PP | Judge: Isaac Chao 1ac - india |
| TFA State | Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: panel 1ac - vaccines |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 2 | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: Isaac Chao 1ac - india |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani 1ac - india |
| THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani 1ac - india |
| The Longhorn Classic | 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1ac - brazil |
| The Longhorn Classic | 3 | Opponent: Westwood AY | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1ac - egypt |
| The Longhorn Classic | 5 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Sreyaash Das 1ac - china |
| The Longhorn Classic | Triples | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard LH | Judge: Panel 1ac - teachers |
| The Longhorn Classic | Doubles | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Ishan Rereddy, Aaron Barcio, Jugal Amodwala 1ac - japan |
| any | 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any contact info |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any | 9/10/21 |
1 - NC - UtilTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millard North EB | Judge: Chris Theis The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing.1~ Actor spec—governments must use util because they don’t have intentions and are constantly dealing with tradeoffs—outweighs since different agents have different obligations—takes out calc indicts since they are empirically denied.2~ Death is bad and outweighs – a~ agents can’t act if they fear for their bodily security which constrains every ethical theory, b~ it destroys the subject itself – kills any ability to achieve value in ethics since life is a prerequisite which means it’s a side constraint since we can’t reach the end goal of ethics without life3~ Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they’re our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actionsMoen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. AND notion of legal standing will outstrip the power relations that ground Pettit’s theory. 4~ Extinction outweighsMacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ AND with the benefit of keeping one’s options open while one gains new information. | 9/25/21 |
1 - Theory - New affs badTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: Isaac Chao Interpretation: If the affirmative debater reads a new advantage and framework, then they must disclose the advantage area and standard or ROB text of the aff they are reading to the negative debater before the round.Violation: They didn’t – see screenshots.
Vote Neg:~1~ Limits – there are hundreds of thousands of different advantage areas and frameworks they could read. Allowing the aff to break new explodes the prep burden of the 1NC, especially because it is impossible to predict any infinite number of affs they could read. Kills engagement – Their interp requires the neg to bifurcate their prep between tons of aff’s while the aff focuses on just one, meaning the 1NC is destroyed by 1ar frontlines since they have dozens of times more prep and will always be better able to defend the aff. Also means we cannot truth test the aff which is why the shell logically comes prior and they don’t get to weigh it. Saying whole res doesn’t solve – ~a~ the neg prep will be generic at best, which means the aff wrecks us on advantage specifity, ~b~ they’ll just uplayer with framework and invalidate all 1NC offense which we can’t predict, ~c~ absent an understanding of the nature of the advantage we don’t know what links – ie disads, kritiks, etc. Turns aff flex, even if affirming is harder you shouldn’t be able to eliminate 99 percent of neg prep. My interpretation is key to me being able to have any shot at engaging which outweighs on magnitude. It’s like fighting someone without knowing their Devil Fruit – you would get destroyed.~2~ Argument quality: ~a~ plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot aff’s with fringe authors and shoddy solvency. They had a month to prep – the neg is entitled to some research time to make sure the AFF is inherent, topical, and controversial. Otherwise bad AFF’s can win on purely surprise factor, which is a bad model b/c it encourages finding the most fringe surprising case possible instead of a well researched and defensible aff. ~b~ Link turns critical thinking – having time to prep against the specificity of the aff leads to the best, most fleshed out responses – otherwise we’re pigeonholed into generic Ks that don’t answer the aff. Thinking on your feet doesn’t solve – we can’t cut good evidence against the aff in 6 minutes and the aff always beats us on that evidence debate.~3~ Inclusion – new affs are a huge source of anxiety since debaters have less than 10 minutes to generate an entire 1NC – uniquely harms disabled debaters who suffer from anxiety or processing disorders. Outweighs on specificity – you actively harmed a disabled person this round. Inclusion outweighs – debate had to be inclusive for you to debate.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and set better norms for debateFairness – ~a~ you assume the judge fairly evaluates arguments, ~b~ debate is a game that requires objective evaluation.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ Baiting – good theory debaters bait the rvi with an abusive strategy which disinscnteiviizes checking abuse | 1/8/22 |
1 - Theory - New affs bad v2Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Interpretation: Debaters must disclose the framework text of their new AC if asked before roundViolation: I asked and you chose not to disclosure, I also have screenshots of your wiki, nothing disclosed
~1~ Limits — Unbroken standard are unpredictable because they can plan any part of the resolution making it impossible to know which part they’re going to specify, which means the neg has to prep every single one of thousands of different standards to have a shot at engaging whereas the aff only has to prep one, creating a massive prep skew. Turns aff flex, even if affirming is harder, which I will contest, you shouldn’t be able to eliminate 99 percent of neg prep. My interpretation is key to me being able to have any shot at engaging.Fairness is a voter—debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation and ow other voters on irriversibilty we cant get education from cutting cards but we will never get a level playingfield without theory. Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation has shifted—also the shell indicts your whole aff—justifies severance which skews my strat. Use competing interps—leads to a race to the top since we figure out the best possible norm and avoids judge intervention since there’s a clear briteline. No RVIs—IllogicalBaiting | 3/11/22 |
JF - K - ExhuastionTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani Our thesis – Capitalism has evolved, Information is the most important commodity in the new digital age, all activity is judged based upon your cognitive abilities. The future is grounded in capitalism and allows information to enhance itself, the 1acs imagining of a better world fails to recognize that the future is a disguise that allows capitalism to strengthen itself through the idea of productionBerardi 09 Precarious Rhapsody Semiocapitalism and the pathologies of the post-alpha generation Franco "Bifo" Berardi ISBN 978-1-57027-207-3 Edited by Erik Empson and Stevphen Shukaitis Translated by Arianna Bove, Erik Empson, Michael Goddard, Giuseppina Mecchia, Antonella Schintu, and Steve Wright Minor Compositions London 2009sjvc AND as Bill Gates likes to say, "information is our vital fluid." The future is grounded in capitalism and allows information to enhance itself, the 1acs imagining of a better world fails to recognize that the future is a disguise that allows capitalism to strengthen itself through the idea of productionBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND as while I write these lines the future is not stopping to unfold. The digital world creates massive amounts of information that infiltrate the imaginary which disrupts our unconscious. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best reduces exhaustion – you should be epistemically suspect of anything else because exhaustion directly affects our perception of the worldBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND the psychic catastrophe of the virtual class, published in the year 2000. Alt is to engage in depression politics where we turn exhaustion against itself through withdrawal, let exhaustion take over us instead of constantly fighting against it, embracing a "wu wei" civilization in which we no longer are subject to the constant push and processing of information through us as carriersBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good. | 1/8/22 |
JF - K - ExhuastionTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani Our thesis – Capitalism has evolved, Information is the most important commodity in the new digital age, all activity is judged based upon your cognitive abilities. The future is grounded in capitalism and allows information to enhance itself, the 1acs imagining of a better world fails to recognize that the future is a disguise that allows capitalism to strengthen itself through the idea of productionBerardi 09 Precarious Rhapsody Semiocapitalism and the pathologies of the post-alpha generation Franco "Bifo" Berardi ISBN 978-1-57027-207-3 Edited by Erik Empson and Stevphen Shukaitis Translated by Arianna Bove, Erik Empson, Michael Goddard, Giuseppina Mecchia, Antonella Schintu, and Steve Wright Minor Compositions London 2009sjvc AND as Bill Gates likes to say, "information is our vital fluid." The future is grounded in capitalism and allows information to enhance itself, the 1acs imagining of a better world fails to recognize that the future is a disguise that allows capitalism to strengthen itself through the idea of productionBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND as while I write these lines the future is not stopping to unfold. The digital world creates massive amounts of information that infiltrate the imaginary which disrupts our unconscious. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best reduces exhaustion – you should be epistemically suspect of anything else because exhaustion directly affects our perception of the worldBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND the psychic catastrophe of the virtual class, published in the year 2000. Alt is to engage in depression politics where we turn exhaustion against itself through withdrawal, let exhaustion take over us instead of constantly fighting against it, embracing a "wu wei" civilization in which we no longer are subject to the constant push and processing of information through us as carriersBerardi 11 After the Future Franco Berardi ("Bifo") Edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn Translated by Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranovasjvc AND new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good. | 1/8/22 |
JF - NC - KorsgaardTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood AR | Judge: Isaac Chao Permissibility and presumption negate – the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation making it impossible to prove a statement is unjustEthics must begin a priori and the meta-ethic is bindingness.~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~2~ Theory – Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer ona. resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.b. clarity of weighing~3~ No 1AR Framework: It moots 7 minutes of the 1NC and exacerbates the AFF infinite prep time so I should be able to compensate by choosing. They justify substantive skews by shifting frame of offense.Negate:~1~ Banning private space appropriation inhibits the sale and use of spacecraft and fuel- that’s a form of restricting the free economic choices of individualsRichman 12, Sheldon. "The free market doesn’t need government regulation." Reason, August 5, 2012. AHS RG AND really, it is just men and women acting rationally in the world. ~2~ Acquisition of property can never be unjust – to create rights violations, there must already be an owner of the property being violated, but that presupposes its appropriation by another entity.Feser 1, (Edward Feser, 1-1-2005, accessed on 12-15-2021, Cambridge University Press, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNJUST INITIAL ACQUISITION | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core", Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/abs/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-unjust-initial-acquisition/5C744D6D5C525E711EC75F75BF7109D1)~~brackets for gen lang~phs st AND , then, for there to be any injustices in initial acquisition.7 | 1/8/22 |
JF - Theory - Must not spec actorTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify an actor in the resolution that does not have jurisdiction over all private entitiesViolation: They specify India which only has jurisdiction over private entitites that exist within IndiaSStandards1. Limits2. TVAFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 1/8/22 |
JF - Theory - Must not spec actorTournament: THE 47TH CHURCHILL CLASSIC TOC AND NIETOC QUALIFIER | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Vishal Sivamani Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify an actor in the resolution that does not have jurisdiction over all private entitiesViolation: They specify India which only has jurisdiction over private entitites that exist within IndiaSStandards1. Limits2. TVAFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 1/8/22 |
MA - DA - AuthoritarianismTournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: Westwood PP | Judge: Isaac Chao Policies that promote objectivity become the pretext for government crackdowns on legitimate journalismWest 17 Darrell M. West (Vice President and Director - Governance Studies Senior Fellow - Center for Technology Innovation Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies) 12/18/2017, How to combat fake news and disinformation, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/Karan AND improve news quality not weaken journalistic content or the investigative landscape facing reporters. Gov. crackdowns on media are a form of soft authoritarianism that escalates into complete tyrannyChristensen 21 Christensen, Devin (PhD in Political Science, UNC, Chapel Hill), John Lovett, and John A. Curiel. "Mainstream Media Recirculation of Trust-Reducing Social Media Messages." American Politics Research (2021): 1532673X211023931. AND them the authority to set things straight (Svilicic and Maldini, 2014). | 3/12/22 |
MA - DA - Authoritarianism v2Tournament: TFA State | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: panel Policies that promote objectivity become the pretext for government crackdowns on legitimate journalismWest 17 Darrell M. West (Vice President and Director - Governance Studies Senior Fellow - Center for Technology Innovation Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies) 12/18/2017, How to combat fake news and disinformation, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/Karan AND improve news quality not weaken journalistic content or the investigative landscape facing reporters. Gov. crackdowns on media are a form of soft authoritarianism that escalates into complete tyrannyChristensen 21 Christensen, Devin (PhD in Political Science, UNC, Chapel Hill), John Lovett, and John A. Curiel. "Mainstream Media Recirculation of Trust-Reducing Social Media Messages." American Politics Research (2021): 1532673X211023931. AND them the authority to set things straight (Svilicic and Maldini, 2014). Authoritarianism causes a laundry list of catastrophic impacts.Kasparov and Halvorssen 17 ~Garry Kasparov and Thor Halvorssen *Chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation Thor Halvorssen is the foundation’s president and chief executive. "Opinion: Why the rise of authoritarianism is a global catastrophe." Washington Post. 2/13/17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/13/why-the-rise-of-authoritarianism-is-a-global-catastrophe/~~ Justin AND human rights violations and to use our freedom to help others achieve theirs. That culminates in rogue tech, nuclear war, and climate change.Orts ’18 ~Eric; June 27; Guardsmark Professor in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania; LinkedIn Pulse, "Foreign Affairs: Six Future Scenarios (and a Seventh)," https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/foreign-affairs-six-future-scenarios-seventh-eric-orts~~ AND problems, such as the risks of thermonuclear war and global climate catastrophe. | 3/12/22 |
MA - NC - KorsgaardTournament: TFA STATE | Round: 2 | Opponent: La Vernia JR | Judge: Devin Hernandez Ethics must begin a priori and the meta-ethic is bindingness.~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~2~ Theory – Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.~3~ No 1AR Framework: It moots 7 minutes of the 1NC and exacerbates the AFF infinite prep time so I should be able to compensate by choosing. They justify substantive skews by shifting frame of offense.Negate:~1~ Objectivity censors’ journalists’ personal views and biases- that’s non universalizableGreven 21 Greven, Alec, "Speech and Sovereignty: A Kantian Defense of Freedom of Expression" (2021). Honors Theses. 1579. AND respect the unity of their agency and treat others with equal moral standing. ~2~ Journalists are required to respect those they report on, thus, advocacy journalism is required to alleviate sufferingLeshilo 18 Thabo Leshilo ~A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Applied Ethics for Professionals.~ "Morality and Journalists: Objectivity versus Duty of Care" 13 July 2018, Johannesburg https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/26530/Morality20and20Journalists20(markup)'2.pdf?sequence=1 AND ordinarily expect another human being to help to alleviate his or her suffering. | 3/10/22 |
MA - NC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: TFA State | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: panel Ethics must begin a priori and the meta-ethic is bindingness.~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~2~ Theory – Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.Clarity of weighing~3~ No 1AR Framework: It moots 7 minutes of the 1NC and exacerbates the AFF infinite prep time so I should be able to compensate by choosing. They justify substantive skews by shifting frame of offense.~4~ Aspec: JOURNALISTS CAN’T USE UTIL, PREFER DUTY BASED ETHICSChristians 7 Christians, Clifford (Research Professor of Comunications, Professor of Journalism and Professor of Media Studies Emeritus at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) "Utilitarianism in media ethics and its discontents." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22.2-3 (2007): 113-131. AND theoretically credible media ethics, the most promising direction is a deontological one. Negate:~1~ Objectivity censors’ journalists’ personal views and biases- that’s non universalizableGreven 21 Greven, Alec, "Speech and Sovereignty: A Kantian Defense of Freedom of Expression" (2021). Honors Theses. 1579. AND respect the unity of their agency and treat others with equal moral standing. ~2~ Journalists are required to respect those they report on, thus, advocacy journalism is required to alleviate sufferingLeshilo 18 Thabo Leshilo ~A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Applied Ethics for Professionals.~ "Morality and Journalists: Objectivity versus Duty of Care" 13 July 2018, Johannesburg https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/26530/Morality20and20Journalists20(markup)'2.pdf?sequence=1 AND ordinarily expect another human being to help to alleviate his or her suffering. | 3/12/22 |
MA - NC - Logical consequenceTournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Permissibility and presumption negate – a. the resolution indicates the affirmative is proactive, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation b. Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.The neg burden is to prove that the aff won’t logically happen in the status quo, and the aff burden is to prove that it will.Top of Form Prefer:1~ Text –A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa 2~ Debatability – a) it focuses debates on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years3~ Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Now negate:Negate: 1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen. | 3/11/22 |
MA - NC - Truth testingTournament: TFA STATE | Round: 2 | Opponent: La Vernia JR | Judge: Devin Hernandez The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it falsePrefer:~1~ Constitutivism: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity b) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It’s a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game – that’s a meta constraint on anything else since the judge voting aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary proves that it’s an independent voter and otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means it also controls the internal link to fairness since that’s definitionally unfair and a practice can only make sense based on intrinsic rules. AND inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren’t mutually exclusive with mine. ~3~ Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.Negate:~1~ Merriam webster defines press ashttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press
~2~ Merriam webster defines over ashttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/over
~3~ Merriam webster defines free ashttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
| 3/10/22 |
MA - T - ATournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: Westwood PP | Judge: Isaac Chao Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a democracy in which a free press ought to priortize objectivity over advocacy"A" is an indefinite article that modifies "democracy" in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a VACCUM, not in a particular instanceCCC ("Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers", http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ AND the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class Violation: they spec ~x~Standards:~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.~2~ limits – the EIU says there are 75 full or flawed democracies but even that’s not an agreed upon brightline – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. advocacy offense needs to be contextualized to each country because they have different advocacy climates and free press norms and laws are different within each nation where different countries value objectivity differently.~3~ tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all ur offense- Potential abuse doesn’t permit 1AC abuse – allows you to be infinitely abusive in the 1AC-– if the neg doesn’t have specific prep, they’ll resort to cheaty word PICs which are net worseFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 3/12/22 |
MA - Theory - Must not spec conditionTournament: TFA State | Round: Triples | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: panel Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a condition in which a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacyViolation: they spec ~x~Standards:~1~ limits – there are infinite conditions that hey could specify like vaccines, war reporting, climate change, peace journalism, literally every issue in existence can be an aff. – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. advocacy offense needs to be contextualized to each condition because they have different political climates, like how people respond differently to different kinds of news with more or less skepticism for example~3~ tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all ur offense- Potential abuse doesn’t permit 1AC abuse – allows you to be infinitely abusive in the 1AC-– if the neg doesn’t have specific prep, they’ll resort to cheaty word PICs which are net worseFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 3/12/22 |
ND - NC - KorsgaardTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Ishan Rereddy Permissibility presumption negate – a. res indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, permisiblit denies the existence of one b – statements are more often false than true because any part can be false c – safety – you shouldn’t pursue action if you’re unsure if it’s good or notEthics must begin a priori and the meta-ethic is bindingness.~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~2~ Theory – Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.Clarify of weighing – clear categories - resolvability~3~ No 1AR Framework: It moots 7 minutes of the 1NC and exacerbates the AFF infinite prep time so I should be able to compensate by choosing. They justify substantive skews by shifting frame of offense.Negate:1~ Strikes violate individual autonomy by exercising coercion.Gourevitch 18 ~Alex; Brown University; "The Right to Strike: A Radical View," American Political Science Review; 2018; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0003055418000321~~ Justin AND liberties nor the related laws that strikers violate when using certain coercive tactics. 2~ Means to an end: employees ignore their duty to help their patients in favor of higher wages which treats them as a means to an end.3~ Free-riding: strikes are a form of free-riding since those who don’t participate still reap the benefits.Dolsak and Prakash 19 ~Nives and Aseem; We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs; "Climate Strikes: What They Accomplish And How They Could Have More Impact," 9/14/19; Forbes; https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2019/09/14/climate-strikes-what-they-accomplish-and-how-they-could-have-more-impact/?sh=2244a9bd5eed~~ Justin AND , a large number of people have a strong preference for climate action. | 12/4/21 |
ND - NC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Sreyaash Das Permissibility presumption negate – a. res indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, permisiblit denies the existence of one b – statements are more often false than true because any part can be false c – safety – you shouldn’t pursue action if you’re unsure if it’s good or notEthics must begin a priori and the meta-ethic is bindingness.~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer –~1~ All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will.~2~ Theory – Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.Clarify of weighing – clear categories - resolvabilityNegate:1~ Strikes violate individual autonomy by exercising coercion.Gourevitch 18 ~Alex; Brown University; "The Right to Strike: A Radical View," American Political Science Review; 2018; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0003055418000321~~ Justin AND liberties nor the related laws that strikers violate when using certain coercive tactics. 2~ Free-riding: strikes are a form of free-riding since those who don’t participate still reap the benefits.Dolsak and Prakash 19 ~Nives and Aseem; We write on environmental issues, climate politics and NGOs; "Climate Strikes: What They Accomplish And How They Could Have More Impact," 9/14/19; Forbes; https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2019/09/14/climate-strikes-what-they-accomplish-and-how-they-could-have-more-impact/?sh=2244a9bd5eed~~ Justin AND , a large number of people have a strong preference for climate action. | 12/4/21 |
ND - NC - Logical ConsequenceTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Sreyaash Das The aff burden is to prove that the aff will logically happen in the status quoTop of Form Prefer:1~ Text –A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa 2~ Debatability – it focuses debates on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years3~ Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Now negate:Negate: 1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen. | 12/4/21 |
ND - NC - Logical Consequence v2Tournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Ishan Rereddy, Aaron Barcio, Jugal Amodwala The aff burden is to prove that the aff will logically happen in the status quoTop of Form Prefer:1~ Text –A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa c~ "Should" means a logical consequence – 2 definitions.Merriam-Webster. No Date. "Definition of Should." Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should. NM AND that a guide … is the first essential — L. D. Reddick 2~ Debatability – a. it focuses debates on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for yearsb. the neg forces the most real world debates because it forces us to actually take into consideration things that are possible as opposed to abstract policymaking that’s impossible which means we are more material – the aff’s method just imagines we magically pass something that will never happen whereas we discuss real trends which link turns education claimsc. Prediction is impossible. Any action can lead to a domino effect that can have disastrous impacts in the end. For example, if I sneeze, it could lead to a butterfly effect that eventually causes my sneeze to form into a hurricane and kill thousands.3~ Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.4~ Log con isn’t mutually exclusive with comparative worlds a) logic is a side constraint on desirability b) proves why it’s not desirable since taking impossible actions are net bad since they produce no benefits and only opportunity costs c) reinterprets to the more logical world rather than more desireable world.Now negate:Negate: 1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen. | 12/5/21 |
ND - T - ATournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Ishan Rereddy Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a just government in which a right to strike ought to be recognized"A" is an indefinite article that modifies "just governmnt" in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a VACCUM, not in a particular instanceCCC ("Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers", http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ AND the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class Violation: they spec ~x~Standards:~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.~2~ limits – the UN says there are 195 national governments but even that’s not an agreed upon brightline – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. factors that affect labor shortages or unions in the US are different than in China – means the aff is always more prepared and wins just for speccing. There’s been China, Hungary, EU, Kazakhstan, US, India, UK, Egypt and now brazil~3~ tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all ur offense- Potential abuse doesn’t permit 1AC abuse – allows you to be infinitely abusive in the 1AC-– if the neg doesn’t have specific prep, they’ll resort to cheaty word PICs which are net worseFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices c~ creates a chilling affect where people are scared to check abuse which also leads to maximally abusvie practcies | 12/4/21 |
ND - Theory - Must spec strikeTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard LH | Judge: Panel Interpretation: The affirmative debater must specify the type of strike in a delineated text in the 1AC.Violation:Standards –1~ Topic lit – strikes are the core question of the topic and there’s no consensus on normal means so you must spec.Law Library AND the argument is between unions and not between a union and the employer. ====This acts as a resolvability standard. Debate has to make sense and be comparable for the judge to make a decision which means it’s an independent voter and outweighs.==== Implications:~1~ Stable advocacy – 1AR clarification delinks neg positions that prove why enforcement in a certain instance is bad by saying it isn’t their method of enforcement – wrecks neg ballot access and kills in depth clash – CX doesn’t check since it kills 1NC construction pre-round~2~ Prep skew – I don’t know what they will be willing to clarify until CX which means I could go 6 minutes planning to read a disad and then get screwed over in CX when they spec a different funding. This means that CX can’t check because the time in between is when I should be formulating my strat and waiting until then is the abuse. Key fairness because I won’t be able to use the strat I formulated if you skewed my prep and will have a time disadvantage~3~ Real world ed and clash – policy makers always specify what their policy affects, or what it implements. Absent clarification for a strike, we are two ships passing in the night with no clash, since you could be talking about wildcats, and I could be talking about walkouts – key to education because otherwise we don’t learn anything or have a real debateD. VoterFairness is a voter—debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Education is a voter – it is the terminal impact of debate. Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation has shifted—also the shell indicts your whole aff—justifies severance which skews my strat. Use competing interps—leads to a race to the top since we figure out the best possible norm and avoids judge intervention since there’s a clear briteline. No RVIs—a. Baiting—they’ll just bait theory and prep it out—justifies infinite abuse and results in a chilling effectb. its not logical—you don’t reward them for meeting the burden of being fair, especially on T debate where definitions are objective while your interp is subjective. Logic is a meta constraint on all args because it definitionally determines whether an argument is valid. | 12/5/21 |
SO - CP - ScientistsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millard North EB | Judge: Chris Theis Text: A nation appointed international panel of scientists including National Academies and corresponding organizations should ~reduce intellectual property protections~ and manage similar conflicts of interest between intellectual property.International panel of science diplomats can rule over IP—-that’s key to science diplomacy.Hajjar and Greenbaum 18 ~David; Dean Emeritus and University Distinguished Professor, and Professor of Biochemistry and Pathology at Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, a Jefferson Science Fellow of the National Academies at the U.S. Department of State, and a recent Senior Fellow in Science Policy at the Brookings Institute; Steven; Professor and Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Hunter College of the City University of New York and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was a Jefferson Science Fellow of the National Academies at the U.S. Department of State; "Leveraging Diplomacy for Managing Scientific Challenges," American Diplomacy; September 18; https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2018/09/leveraging-diplomacy-for-managing-scientific-challenges-an-opportunity-to-navigate-the-future-of-science/~~ Justin AND or funding agency panelists for the advancement of science toward the greater good. Solves every existential threat.Haynes 18—research associate in the Neurobiology Department at Harvard Medical School (Trevor, "Science Diplomacy: Collaboration in a rapidly changing world," http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/science-diplomacy-collaboration-rapidly-changing-world/, dml) Re-Cut Justin AND can to foster collaboration. The future of human civilization depends on it. | 9/25/21 |
SO - DA - InfrastructureTournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Jack Quisenberry Bipartisan infrastructure bill passing now but PC is needed – there is no margin for error.Kapur et al 9/8 ~Sahil, Frank Thorp, and Leigh Ann Caldwell; 9/8/21; Sahil Kapur is a national political reporter for NBC News, Frank Thorp V is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the Senate, Leigh Ann Caldwell is an NBC News correspondent; "Democrats plow 'full speed ahead' on sweeping Biden budget, despite tensions," https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-plow-full-speed-ahead-sweeping-biden-budget-despite-tensions-n1278722~~ Justin AND them could basically make a few cosmetic changes and throw in the towel." Aff doesn’t solve but requires negotiations that saps PC.Pooley 21 ~James; Former deputy director general of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization and a member of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding; "Drawn-Out Negotiations Over Covid IP Will Blow Back on Biden," Barron’s; 5/26/21; https://www.barrons.com/articles/drawn-out-negotiations-over-covid-ip-will-blow-back-on-biden-51621973675~~ Justin AND helping export our surplus vaccine doses and vaccine ingredients to countries in need. Infrastructure secures the grid against worsening and increasing cyberattacks.Carney 21 ~Chris; 8/6/21; Senior policy advisor at Nossaman LLC, former US Representative, former professor of political science at Penn State University; "The US Senate Infrastructure Bill: Securing Our Electrical Grid Through P3s and Grants," JDSupra, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-us-senate-infrastructure-bill-4989100/~~ Justin AND partnerships and grants, the nation can quickly secure its infrastructure from cyberattacks. Cyberattacks on the grid spiral to all-out nuclear conflict.Klare 19 ~Michael; November 2019; Professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College; "Cyber Battles, Nuclear Outcomes? Dangerous New Pathways to Escalation," Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-11/features/cyber-battles-nuclear-outcomes-dangerous-new-pathways-escalation~~ Justin AND such attacks "could lead to major conflict and possibly nuclear war."14 | 9/19/21 |
SO - DA - Infrastructure v2Tournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Arya Goel Bipartisan infrastructure bill passing now but PC is needed – there is no margin for error.Kapur et al 9/8 ~Sahil, Frank Thorp, and Leigh Ann Caldwell; 9/8/21; Sahil Kapur is a national political reporter for NBC News, Frank Thorp V is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the Senate, Leigh Ann Caldwell is an NBC News correspondent; "Democrats plow 'full speed ahead' on sweeping Biden budget, despite tensions," https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-plow-full-speed-ahead-sweeping-biden-budget-despite-tensions-n1278722~~ Justin AND them could basically make a few cosmetic changes and throw in the towel." Cannabis legislation costs Biden floortime and kills bipartisanship.Roberts '21 (Chris Roberts; Chris Roberts is an award-winning investigative reporter with bylines in VICE, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, The Verge, Curbed, Forbes, SF Weekly, and others; 2-7-2021; "On Marijuana Reform, Joe Biden Will Disappoint You"; https://whowhatwhy.org/opinion/on-marijuana-reform-joe-biden-will-disappoint-you/, WhoWhatWhy, accessed 9-6-2021; JPark) AND over itself to avoid hearing during the 2022 midterms. And it shows. Infrastructure secures the grid against worsening and increasing cyberattacks.Carney 21 ~Chris; 8/6/21; Senior policy advisor at Nossaman LLC, former US Representative, former professor of political science at Penn State University; "The US Senate Infrastructure Bill: Securing Our Electrical Grid Through P3s and Grants," JDSupra, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-us-senate-infrastructure-bill-4989100/~~ Justin AND partnerships and grants, the nation can quickly secure its infrastructure from cyberattacks. Cyberattacks on the grid spiral to all-out nuclear conflict.Klare 19 ~Michael; November 2019; Professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College; "Cyber Battles, Nuclear Outcomes? Dangerous New Pathways to Escalation," Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-11/features/cyber-battles-nuclear-outcomes-dangerous-new-pathways-escalation~~ Justin AND such attacks "could lead to major conflict and possibly nuclear war."14 | 9/25/21 |
SO - DA - InnovationTournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Aaron Barcio Pharma innovation high now – monetary incentive is the biggest factor.Swagel 21 Phillip L. Swagel, Director of the Congressional budget office 4-xx-2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Congressional Budget Office, https://www.cbo.goc/publication/57126~~#'idTextAnchor020 SJDA AND drugs), and conducting postapproval testing for safety-monitoring or marketing purposes. The aff crushes innovation in the pharma sector—-incentivizes them to focus on non-important issues.Glassman 21 ~Amanda; 5/6/21; Executive vice president and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington and London; "Big Pharma Is Not the Tobacco Industry," Barron, https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-pharma-is-not-the-tobacco-industry-51620315693~~ Justin AND by ponying up cash to vaccinate the entire world. No confiscation necessary. Pharma Innovation prevents Extinction – checks new diseases.Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) AND profit in medicine and especially in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. Pharma spills-over – has cascading global impacts that are necessary for human survival.NAS 8 National Academy of Sciences 12-3-2008 "The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future Summary of a Workshop" Re-cut by Elmer AND biological processes at work in the oceans can humans live sustainably on earth. | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - PoliticsTournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Jeong Wan Choi Bipartisan antitrust bills passing now but continued PC needed to pacify republicans.Perlman 9/3 ~Matthew; 9/3/21; "Interest Groups Back Big Tech Antitrust Bills In House," LAW360, https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1418789/interest-groups-back-big-tech-antitrust-bills-in-house~~ Justin AND agree is already doing great harm to our democracy," the letter said. Aff doesn’t solve but requires negotiations that saps PC.Pooley 21 ~James; Former deputy director general of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization and a member of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding; "Drawn-Out Negotiations Over Covid IP Will Blow Back on Biden," Barron’s; 5/26/21; https://www.barrons.com/articles/drawn-out-negotiations-over-covid-ip-will-blow-back-on-biden-51621973675~~ Justin AND helping export our surplus vaccine doses and vaccine ingredients to countries in need. Antitrust is key to the DIB – brink is now.Sitaraman 20 ~Ganesh; Vanderbilt University Law School; "The National Security Case for Breaking Up Big Tech," Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia; 3/12/20; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=3537870~~ brett Re-Cut Justin AND redirected via monopoly profits to the pockets of big tech executives and shareholders. That solves extinction through great power war.Marks 19 ~Michael; Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for Security Assistance, Science and Technology at the U.S. Department of State; "Strengthen US Industry To Counter National Security Challenges," American Military News; 10/10/19; https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/10/strengthen-us-industry-to-counter-national-security-challenges/~~ Justin AND industry, therefore, will be critical to countering our national security challenges. | 9/11/21 |
SO - K - Queer negativityTournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley JS | Judge: Connor self Desire from lack projects identity which we can never fully reach which urges the political to determine which identities are legitimate. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater with the best method of traversing the fantasy.Edelman 04 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 7-9) SJCPJG AND force of what insists outside or beyond, because foreclosed by, signification. The alternative is to embrace the death drive – a full affirmation of queer negativity in which we adopt political apostasy and embrace radical queer jouissance.baedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan SJBE AND exploits us, but also against everything that produces us as we are. Psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and accurate.Grant and Harari ‘5 (Don and Edwin, psychiatrists, "Psychoanalysis, science and the seductive theory of Karl Popper," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ) sjbe, recut from Harvard BS AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. No perms: (a) view it as artificially distinct since it’s key to fully flesh out the individual intricacies of both methods and create more concrete proposals (b) justifies infinite aff conditionality – allowings permutations allows infinite new 1AR advocacies which skews 1 mins of the 1NC and destroys neg ground (c) irreciprocal – we can’t permute their methods which means they can always intrinsic perm or sever which destroys neg ground (d) illogical – the alt isn’t fiated in the sense of the aff so endorsing a fiated world mixed with a pre-fiat orientation is incoherent (e) hold the 1AC method by itself since anything else endorses bad scholarship since it justifies severence – justifying both in the aff solves. | 9/11/21 |
SO - K - Queer negativity v2Tournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Arya Goel Desire from lack projects identity which we can never fully reach which urges the political to determine which identities are legitimate. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater with the best method of traversing the fantasy.Edelman 04 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 7-9) SJCPJG AND force of what insists outside or beyond, because foreclosed by, signification. Politics and futurism is built on the premise that any negation of the signifier of the child is essential in order to fulfill desire from lack which deems queerness out of the political – the impact is reproductive futurism which is a system of structural overkill that places queerness in a position of ontological exclusion. They get to weigh their aff’s research and the reasons why that research is desirable, which resolves any fairness concerns All of our links implicate the effects of the plan, which is sufficient for plan focusEdelman 2 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 10-13) SJCPJG AND of social organization, collective reality, and, inevitably, life itself. The alternative is to embrace the death drive – a full affirmation of queer negativity in which we adopt political apostasy and embrace radical queer jouissance. Solves case -baedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan SJBE AND exploits us, but also against everything that produces us as we are. No perms: (a) view it as artificially distinct since it’s key to fully flesh out the individual intricacies of both methods and create more concrete proposals (b) justifies infinite aff conditionality – allowings permutations allows infinite new 1AR advocacies which skews 1 mins of the 1NC and destroys neg ground (c) irreciprocal – we can’t permute their methods which means they can always intrinsic perm or sever which destroys neg ground (d) illogical – the alt isn’t fiated in the sense of the aff so endorsing a fiated world mixed with a pre-fiat orientation is incoherent (e) hold the 1AC method by itself since anything else endorses bad scholarship since it justifies severence – justifying both in the aff solves.Social death outweighs biological death~a~ severity- social death is the most severe because it is responsible for gratuitous irrational violence on to queer bodies which results in the most intensified forms of suffering AND totally improbable and not realistic so you should be skeptical of their weighing claims | 9/25/21 |
SO - NC - KorsgaardTournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Jeong Wan Choi 1NC – FWPermissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.Morality must be grounded in a priori truth to guide action, otherwise everyone would have different ethical codes and follow different rules. And, truth exists independent of human experience since certain things can be self-proving, i.e. a triangle has three sides. This is the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Things that are true by observation are just true by a matter of chance. For example, the cat may be on the mat, but we can also conceive of a world in which the cat is not on the mat. In contrast, we can’t conceive of a world in which a triangle does not have three sides since it is tautologically true. Reject a posteriori truth since they are just arbitrary states of being, not constitutive of ethics.And, a priori truth has to apply to everyone: ~a~ absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. ~b~ it’s a tautological contradiction: any non-universal norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with willing universal maxims.Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the aff standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others1NC – Offense1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut Cookie JX AND he was to make, as we say today, a free use. 2~The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanityVan Dyke 2 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies. | 9/11/21 |
SO - NC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: Triples | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Truman Le Permissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.Morality must be grounded in a priori truth to guide action, otherwise everyone would have different ethical codes and follow different rules. And, truth exists independent of human experience since certain things can be self-proving, i.e. a triangle has three sides. This is the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Things that are true by observation are just true by a matter of chance. For example, the cat may be on the mat, but we can also conceive of a world in which the cat is not on the mat. In contrast, we can’t conceive of a world in which a triangle does not have three sides since it is tautologically true. Reject a posteriori truth since they are just arbitrary states of being, not constitutive of ethics.And, a priori truth has to apply to everyone: ~a~ absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. ~b~ it’s a tautological contradiction: any non-universal norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with willing universal maxims.Prefer additionally 1~ Ethical frameworks are topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—focusing on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep excluding lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.2~ performativity1NC – Offense1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut Cookie JX AND he was to make, as we say today, a free use. 2~The aff violates the categorical imperative and is non-universalizable- governments have a binding obligation to protect creationsVan Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust. | 9/12/21 |
SO - NC - Korsgaard v3Tournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Aaron Barcio 1NC – FWPermissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.Morality must be grounded in a priori truth to guide action, otherwise everyone would have different ethical codes and follow different rules. And, truth exists independent of human experience since certain things can be self-proving, i.e. a triangle has three sides. This is the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Things that are true by observation are just true by a matter of chance. For example, the cat may be on the mat, but we can also conceive of a world in which the cat is not on the mat. In contrast, we can’t conceive of a world in which a triangle does not have three sides since it is tautologically true. Reject a posteriori truth since they are just arbitrary states of being, not constitutive of ethics.And, a priori truth has to apply to everyone: ~a~ absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. ~b~ it’s a tautological contradiction: any non-universal norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with willing universal maxims.Prefer:~1~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Consequences Fail: ~A~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence so we can’t predict or calculate. ~B~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~C~ Aggregation fails – suffering is not additive can’t compare between one migraine and 10 head aches~3~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 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. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. ~4~ Ethical frameworks are topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—focusing on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep excluding lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~5~ Reject non ideal theory/abstraction Ks ~a~ The Ks do not posit an alternative ethical theory so the problem is just non unq ~b~ Consequences are much worse because they cannot condemn any action as wrong ie there can a consequence where slavery is good so long as it is good the majority which means they are worse ~c~ They are inherently bite back into ideal theory because they appeal to ideals of equality where oppressed are no longer oppressed which also means they needs so sort of ideal to measure progress ~d~ Totally abandoning ethics is bad because then it results in ethical egoism which we all have our one personal set of ethics which would justify white supremacist doing racist stuff because we don’t have a universal way to condemn bad things1NC – Offense1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut Cookie JX AND he was to make, as we say today, a free use. 2~ The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanityVan Dyke 2 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies. IPs are a necessary check on companies free-riding off associations of quality.Wong et al 20 ~Liana, Ian, and Shayerah; Analyst in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; "Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade," *Updated* 5/12/20; CRS; https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200512'RL34292'2023354cc06b0a4425a2c5e02c0b13024426d206.pdf~~ Justin AND by registration with the PTO, through a process similar to trademark registration. | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC - Korsgaard v4Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Breigh Plat Permissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.Ethics must begin a priori:~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which concedes its authority and equally proves agency as constitutiveThat means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer the standard: ~a~ freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others ~b~ Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 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. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. Reject non ideal theory/abstraction Ks ~a~ The Ks do not posit an alternative ethical theory so the problem is just non unq ~b~ Consequences are much worse because they cannot condemn any action as wrong ie there can a consequence where slavery is good so long as it is good the majority which means they are worse ~c~ They are inherently bite back into ideal theory because they appeal to ideals of equality where oppressed are no longer oppressed which also means they needs so sort of ideal to measure progress ~d~ Totally abandoning ethics is bad because then it results in ethical egoism which we all have our one personal set of ethics which would justify white supremacist doing racist stuff because we don’t have a universal way to condemn bad thingsNegate 1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut Cookie JX AND he was to make, as we say today, a free use. 2~The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanityVan Dyke 2 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies. IPs are a necessary check on companies free-riding off associations of quality.Wong et al 20 ~Liana, Ian, and Shayerah; Analyst in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; "Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade," *Updated* 5/12/20; CRS; https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200512'RL34292'2023354cc06b0a4425a2c5e02c0b13024426d206.pdf~~ Justin AND by registration with the PTO, through a process similar to trademark registration. | 9/26/21 |
SO - NC - Logical consequenceTournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: panel Permissibility and presumption negate – a. if the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation b. Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false. C. we don’t presume everything true, that’s why we don’t believe in conspiracy theoriesThe neg burden is to prove that the aff won’t logically happen in the status quo, and the aff burden is to prove that it will.Prefer:1~ Text –A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa 2~ Debatability – A~ it focuses debates on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years – resolvability is an independent voter cuz otherwise the judge can’t make a decision which means it’s a constraint on any burden because otherwise the round is impossible B~ moral framework debate is impossible.Joyce 02 Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. AND count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. 3~ Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Now negate:1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen since there are structural barriers that preclude. Also you don’t get to say in the 1ar that the aff is non inherent because you took a stance in the aff that it was which is an academic integrity issue. | 9/12/21 |
SO - T - MedicinesTournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Arya Goel Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend that member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for a medicine or subset of medicines.Nebel 19. ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh.~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO'avWCNzi14 TG AND "colleges and universities" is generic rather than existential in the resolution. It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn’t entail that member nations of the WTO ought to reduce IPP for drugs because it doesn’t prove that marijuana protections should be reduced 2~ adverb test – adding "always" to the res doesn’t substantially change its meaning because reduce is permanent.Violation: They spec ''''''Standards:~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from Covid vaccines to HIV drugs to Insulin— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications — that explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain medicines which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec medicines.~3~ TVA solves – you could’ve read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 9/25/21 |
SO - T - ReduceTournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Jeong Wan Choi Interpretation: Reduce means unconditional and permanent – the aff is a suspension.Reynolds 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) AND or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Violation:Vote neg:1~ Limits and ground– their model allows affs to defend anything from pandemics to Biden’s presidency— there's no universal DA since it’s impossible to know the timeframe when there won’t be IP— that explodes neg prep and leads to random timeframe of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep (innovation, collaboration, econ, ptx: all core neg literature thrown away)2~ Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution.3~ TVA – defend the advantage to a whole rez timeframe. We don’t prevent new FWs, mechanisms, or advantages. PICs don’t solve – our model allows you to specify countries and medicines.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 9/11/21 |
SO - T - Reduce v2Tournament: GRAPEVINE CLASSIC | Round: Triples | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Truman Le Interpretation: Reduce is distinct from simply changingReduce requires a net decreasePublic Law 87-253 AND other action. which is a scheme or device to qualify for payment. Violation: Compulsory licenses do not reduce patent protectionsSantos Rutschman 21 AND to use the patent-protected technology against the payment of a royalty. Vote neg:1~ Limits and ground– their model allows affs to defend anything from data exclusivity to patent linkages— there's no universal DA since it’s impossible to know each change of the patent system— that explodes neg prep and leads to random patent change of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep (innovation, collaboration, econ, : all core neg literature thrown away)2~ Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution.3~ TVA – defend the advantage to a whole rez timeframe. We don’t prevent new FWs, mechanisms, or advantages. PICs don’t solve – our model allows you to specify countries and medicines.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 9/12/21 |
SO - Theory - Spec enforcementTournament: GREENHILL FALL CLASSIC | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Aaron Barcio Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate their enforcement mechanism by which they reduce in the 1AC.There is no normal means since terms are negotiated contextually among member states.WTO "Whose WTO is it anyway?" https://www.wto.org/english/thewto'e/whatis'e/tif'e/org1'e.htm Elmer AND , for example, influence a country’s policy by threatening to withhold credit. Negate:1~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what measure of reduction the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific politics DAs, process CPs, innovation DAs and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing.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.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 how to enforce it.This spec shell isn’t regressive- it literally determines how the affirmative implements and who it affectsFairness | 9/18/21 |
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/11/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/11/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/12/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/12/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/18/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/19/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/25/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/25/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/26/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
9/26/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
3/10/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
3/11/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
3/12/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
3/12/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
1/8/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
1/8/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
1/8/22 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
12/4/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
12/4/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
12/4/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
12/5/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
| |
12/5/21 | vachen22@mailstrakejesuitorg |
|