American Heritage Broward Gupta Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Finals | All | All |
|
| ||
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Loyola Colum Manning | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Loyola Colum Manning | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - COVID Util AC |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: All | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All Message me if there is some interp that you would like me to meet pre-round so I can try my best to meet it and if you want me to make any accommodations or give content warnings let me know before the round. Pronouns: He/Him Navigation: | 9/25/21 |
SO - NC - ContractsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loyola Colum Manning | Judge: Phoenix Pittman I value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1. Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point.Markovits 14, Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Motivation – A) Externalist notions of ethics collapse to internal since the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that’s generated from it B) Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agents’ motivations are unique and there has been no conversion of differing beliefs into a unified ethic.Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It’s a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good.Gauthier 98, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Since agents take their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties’ consent to in order to regulate behavior.Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility – Contracts are key to a) Encompassing all other ethical calculus into our decision since we process the consistency of those frameworks with our self interest and b) Value pluralism – recognizing a singular ethic fails to account for the complexity of moral problems and genuine moral disagreement. My framework solves since we can recognize multiple legitimate values while allowing individuals to exclude ones that are bad.2. Bindingness – A) Arising of Ethics – Every interaction with another agent is mediated by consent to participate in that interaction since otherwise agents could simply leave, which means there is an implicit social contract formed in every ethical interaction and B) Culpability – Only contracts can ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their action as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it.ContentionI contend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ Stronger IPRs help equalize the bargaining field for developing countries to check western coercion which would diminish their place as world enforcer. Therefore, it’s not in mutual self-interest for them to remove IPs because they want to keep their own economies ahead of others.Hassan et al 10 "Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: A review of the literature: by Emmanuel Hassan, Ohid Yaqub, Stephanie Diepeveen. RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. ~https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical'reports/2010/RAND'TR804.pdf~~ ahs emi ~2~ IP rights are included in multiple international contracts – the aff violates that.Franklin 13 - "International Intellectual Property Law" by Jonathan Franklin* He earned his A.B., A.M. Anthropology and J.D. degrees from Stanford University and M.Libr. with a Certificate in Law Librarianship from the University of Washington. Prior to the University of Washington, he spent five years as an reference librarian and foreign law selector at the University of Michigan Law Library. In law school, he was a Senior Editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal and a Note Editor for the Stanford Law Review. He is a member of the American Association of Law Libraries. ~https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG'IP.pdf~~ ahs emi ~3~ Forecloses the ability for future contracts.Hilty et al 21 ~Reto Hilty Director at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and a professor at the University of Zurich Pedro Henrique D. Batista Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Suelen Carls Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Daria Kim Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Matthias Lamping Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Peter R. Slowinski Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition; "10 Arguments against a Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights," Oxford Law; 6/29/21; https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/06/10-arguments-against-waiver-intellectual-property-rights~~ Justin | 9/25/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|