American Heritage Broward Mathew Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | anyone | anyone |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 1 | La Salle TP | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| any | 2 | anyone | anyone |
|
|
| |
| yale | 5 | vik maan | conal |
|
|
| |
| yale | Doubles | jayden bai | panel |
|
|
| |
| yale | Octas | christian han | panel |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone ignore |
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki ac |
| any | 2 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone ignore |
| yale | 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal ac |
| yale | Doubles | Opponent: jayden bai | Judge: panel ac |
| yale | Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel ac |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone Pronouns: she/her If there's anything I don't meet just message me before round so we can have a substantive debate. | 9/16/21 |
0 - Trigger Warnings - Read PlzTournament: any | Round: 2 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone | 9/19/21 |
G - Determinism NCTournament: yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal Permissibility Negates –~1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.~2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.~3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.~4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Determinism is true and negates: Determinism denies the moral value of prohibitions and obligations because our acts would be up to the consequences of nature. This negates the prescriptive value of ought statements making the aff incoherent because individuals cannot have control over their own actions. proves skep negates as the aff must prove the absolute existence of an obligation.~1~ Causality: The first law of thermodynamics holds that nothing can be created or destroyed, thus everything must have a cause if something cannot come from nothing. This means that either A) free will, which definitionally causes it self, is illogical as it does not have one or B) our free will is caused by something which is a contradiction and proves determinism true.~2~ Eternalism is true: Events do not solely exist in the present but instead exist with the past and future as one continuous spectrum meaning all our future actions already exist.Scott Ryan, Doctor of Philosophy in Religion from Baylor University and post doc fellow at Baylor, A Short Argument for Eternalism, 2013, http://www.scholardarity.com/?page'id=3845 /AHS PB AND by apparently cleaving to common sense in the end departs from it egregiously. ~3~ The best neuroscientific, psychological, and medical evidence show free will doesn’t exist.Andrea Lavazza, Neuroethics, Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy, Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/ /AHS PB BRACKETED FOR CLARITY recut emi AND in the complete absence of consciousness" (Vierkant et al., 2013). ~4~ Double bind: Denying Determinist theory of causality proves that free will doesn’t existMcGinn 93 - Colin McGinn. British philosopher. He has held teaching posts and professorships at University College London, the University of Oxford, Rutgers University and the University of Miami, Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry. London: Wiley, 1993. P. 80 "lol I copped this card off the big questions start pack so I guess I rehighlighted it." perrys card AND of possible world. The concept contains the seeds of its own destruction.. | 9/18/21 |
G - Pain NarrativesTournament: yale | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel Pain Narratives KPain narratives in the academy only ever serve colonial ends. Form over content, they have the most real world impact.Tuck and Yang 13 – Eve Tuck and Wayne Yang, Dec 19, 2013 "R-WORDS: REFUSING RESEARCH"~http://townsendgroups.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/tuckandyangrwords'refusingresearch.pdf~~ Accessed 10/19/18 SAO AND through erasure, but importantly also through inclusion, and its own imperceptibility. Representations must come first in scholarship production in the Global North.Curbishley 15 - Liddy Scarlet Curbishley student Masters of Humanities in Gender Studies August 2015 "Destabilizing the Colonization of Indigenous Knowledge In the Case of Biopiracy" ~https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/319612/Liddy20Thesis.pdf~~ Accessed 8/13/21 SAO AND instead move beyond these dominating dualistic ways of perceiving the world (200). | 9/19/21 |
SO - Alienation Side constraintTournament: yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal Being non-alienated is a side constraint on the aff fwk: Only way to evaluate non-natural properties is through our relationsOur functional capacity of willing and taking actions is mediated by social roles – as the authentic self is inexplicably linked to the self that engages in social communities with others through duplication. Understanding the functionality of the will is impossible in a vacuum.Jaeggi 1, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. The positions of both authors can be reduced to the following common denominator: roles are less alienating than constitutive for the development of persons and personality. They are constitutive in the sense that they are directly bound up with a person’s development and, so, "productive." At first glance this position might seem to come down on one side of the two alternatives—an unconditional affirmation of roles—but after giving a brief account of the position, I will make use of it to move beyond the two alternatives. Once the "productivity thesis" has been articulated, it will be possible to distinguish between alienating and non-alienating aspects of role behavior. THE HUMAN BEING AS DOPPELGÄNGER Roles are productive. In and through them we first become ourselves. This is the essence of Helmuth Plessner’s conception of the positive significance of roles (which he developed as a direct response to critiques of them as alienating). "The human being is always himself only in ‘doubling’ in relation to a role figure he can experience. Also, all that he sees as comprising his authenticity is but the role he plays before himself and others.22 Roles on this view are not only necessary in order to make social interaction possible, whether this be a "being together" of individuals or a benign "passing each other by;" interaction mediated by roles is also constitutive of an individual’s relation to herself.This culminates in the act of appropriation – the ability to view yourself as a practical agent capable of taking up a project that actively changes your own subject and the role itself. Jaeggi 2, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. What does it mean to appropriate something?12 If the concept of appropriation refers to a specific relation between self and world, between individuals and objects (whether spiritual or material), what precisely does this relation look like, what are its particular character and its specific structure? Various aspects come together here, and together they account for the concept’s appeal and potential. As opposed to the mere learning of certain contents, talk of appropriation emphasizes that something is not merely passively taken up but actively worked through and independently assimilated. In contrast to merely theoretical insight into some issue, appropriation—comparable to the psychoanalytic process of "working through"—means that one can "deal with" what one knows, that it stands at one’s disposal as knowledge and that one really and practically has command over it. And appropriating a role means more than being able to fill it: one is, we could say, identified with it. Something that we appropriate does not remain external to ourselves. In making something our own, it becomes a part of ourselves in a certain respect. This suggests a kind of introjection and a mixing of oneself with the objects of appropriation. It also evokes the idea of productively and formatively interacting with what one makes one’s own. Appropriation does not leave what is appropriated unchanged. This is why the appropriation of public spaces, for example, means more than that one uses them. We make them our own by making a mark on them through what we do in and with them, by transforming them through appropriative use such that they first acquire a specific form through this use (though not necessarily in a material sense). Although it has one of its roots in an account of property relations, the concept of appropriation, in contrast to mere possession, emphasizes the particular quality of a process that first constitutes a real act of taking possession of something. Accordingly, appropriation is a particular mode of seizing possession.13 Someone who appropriates something puts her individual mark on it, inserts her own ends and qualities into it. This means that sometimes we must still make something that we already possess our own. Relations of appropriation, then, are characterized by several features: appropriation is a form of praxis, a way of relating practically to the world. It refers to a relation of penetration, assimilation, and internalization in which what is appropriated is at the same time altered, structured, and formed. The crucial point of this model (also of great importance for Marx) is a consequence of this structure of penetration and assimilation: appropriation always means a transformation of both poles of the relation. In a process of appropriation both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed.Thus, the side-constraint is consistency with non-alienated relations.Prefer –1. Performativity – Every exercise you engage in is an instance of using your volition to establish some relation to the world and only non-alienation can establish that relationship as normatively legitimate.2. Action theory – Only viewing an agent as an active body capable of generating intentions can hold agents culpable and decipher the difference between actions and wishes. That’s a necessary feature of ethics since we must be able to warrant a coherent conception of what motivates our actions in order to provide a method to actually implement ethical principles.3. Epistemology – Only an understanding of appropriation can unify the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Theoretical abstract concepts like 2+24 are true and necessary, but can only become useful once explained in context of how they actualize in the world through our intentions. That means absent an explanation of how that knowledge mixes with the world around us, it becomes useless. ==== I contend that member nations of the WTO ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.~1~ Intellectual property is a self-expression of the subject. When it’s used in a way that doesn’t reflect the framer’s intent, it is alienating.Justin Hughes 98, "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ AHSMAK recut emi Accessed 8/10/21 AND permanence and a greater ability than other property to give its own economic security ~2~ IP is key to recognizing agents through the personality in their work. Recognition is necessary for agents to be non-alienated bc we need to establish relations with the world.Hughes 2 - "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) by Justin Hughes ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ ahs emi AND is destroyed; when the second condition is violated, it is distorted. ~3~ Objectification - Absent intellectual property, agents feel like objects since they aren’t recognized for their exercise of agency. This procedurally prevents further appropriation bc agents lack incentive to innovate when they’re detached from their goods. | 9/18/21 |
SO - Bioprospecting CP V Imperialism ACTournament: yale | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel CP Text: Countries in the WTO should create a consent and compensation mechanism to prevent biopiracy in drug developmentNard 03 - Craig Allen Nard, Director, Center for Law, Technology, and the Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Minnesota Law Review, October 2003 "IN DEFENSE OF GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITY" ~http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277andcontext=faculty'publications~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND turn are to be invested, in part, in conservation efforts.58 Mutually Exclusivity: Countries can’t reduce patents and use them as mechanism for wealth transfer.Net Benefit: Capacity BuildingEmpirically bioprospecting with compensation leads to conservation and capacity building which is key to moving past an extractive imperial economy. Solves CaseCastree 2 - Noel Castree, in the journal Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, October 2002 "Bioprospecting: from theory to practice (and back again)" ~https://www.jstor.org/stable/3804566~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND for mutual gain’ (Pearce and Moran 1994, 102) that green developmentalism | 9/19/21 |
SO - Combo Shell v JaydenTournament: yale | Round: Doubles | Opponent: jayden bai | Judge: panel TheoryInterp – The affirmative debater must allow the negative a path to winning the debate.Violation – You read aff theory first, no rvi on aff theory, rvi on nc theory, and negating affirms.The standard is infinite abuse – I can’t answer aff theory which means you always win since I just don’t get to debate and it comes before substnace. Even if that’s not true, by negating u still vote aff.Impacts –A) Destroys clash since I literally am not allowed to make arguments, which controls the IL to education since the any form of education we can get happens through discussion.B) Prevents norm creation – the aff can claim literally any norm is good and the 1N cannot respond, which justifies infinitely unfair theory norms that set the model for all future debates. Use a norm setting model and theory and frame it as an independent voter – 1. It solves long term abuse whereas IRA only matters one round at a time 2. It’s best for the activity since it encourages deep reflection and debate about what the best world of debate looks like and strives toward it. C) Constitutivism – preventing me from making any arguments is a violation of the rules of debate since it’s essentially eliminating my speech time. IOnly evaluate the counter-interp – Anything else allows the aff to be infinitely abusive and use the tactics that gained them the competitive advantage to ensure they win every round by uplayering a true shell with meta-theory, takeouts, and deflationary paradigm issues, justifying the original abuse on the shell.Fairness is a voter since debate is a competitive activity that intrinsically requires equal footing when participating, to minimize one’s ability to participate in discussion disrespects the other member of the activity. It o/w – A) Evaluation – even if their arguments seem true, that’s only because they already had an advantage – fairness is a meta constraint on your ability to determine who best meets their ROB B) Inescapable – every argument you make concedes the authority of fairness: i.e. that the judge will evaluate your arguments. Absent some judge-debater reciprocal relationship, they could just hack against or for you.Drop the debater – 1. Deterrence – Prevents reading the abusive practice in the future since it’s not worth risking the loss which is k2 norm setting indefensible practices die out 2. TS – Otherwise you’ll read a bunch of abusive practices for the time trade off 3. Epistemic Skew – The round has already been skewed so it’s impossible to evaluate the rest of the flow 4. Drop the argument is incoherent under norm setting since you’re voting for the best rule, not a punishment of someone else’s wrong-doing.Use spirit of the interp since text encourages spamming blippy i-meets that avoid discussion of the actual abuse story.1NC Theory o/w – 1. Lexicality – If the neg was abusive it was reactionary to aff abuse which means it’s justified 2. Norm setting – 1ar theory can never set norms since I only get 1 speech so we can’t fully develop the debate 3. Infinite abuse – Otherwise it would justify the aff baiting theory and uplayering and allows them to get away with infinite abuse just by being the better theory debater 4. Reject 2ar weighing since they get the last word and will win every theory debate if they can dump a bunch of new reasons their args come first for 3 minutes even if they are winning 10 seconds of offense. | 9/19/21 |
g - discloseTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: At all TOC bid-distributing tournaments, debaters must the plan text of the aff.Violation – u don’t hve a wiki. Net Benefits:1~ Accessibility: There is a section of literature base and evidence that is blanketed by paywalls and online protections. Full text disclosure means that even in the face of inaccessible evidence, debaters can still understand the crux of the arguments that are being detailed that a first three last three disclosure can never allow. Accessibility is an independent voter: we cannot have any debate without the ability to participate.2~ Research Burdens: The more disclosure happens the better – the more access we have to opponent cases, the more motivated we will be to read, learn and block out.Nails 13 A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure) by Jacob Nails NSD, Update October 10, 2013 AND , backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago.. Voter: Fairness is a voter since if the rounds been skewed its impossible to determine who the better debater was. Education- constitutive purpose ie why schools fund. Competing interps: 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline 2. Necessitates judge intervention to see if we meet th brightline and 3 collapses because we use offense defense paradigm. Drop the debater on theory: 1. Drop the arg is the same thing since the argument was their entire advocacy text. 2. Its key to deterring future abuse No RVIs – a~ illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b~ norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c~ chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d~ substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substance | 9/19/21 |
so - volition ncTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki NCVolition, or the structure of the will, is a pre-condition for ethics and has intrinsic value – A) Proceduralism – the will is the mechanism by which every agent engages in any activity, which means regardless of the content of any ethical theory, the ability to will that theory is an intrinsic good B) Motivation – the structure of the will is the primary source of all our desires, reasons, and beliefs since it generates what counts as motivational to the subject C) Identity – the nature of the will is most constitutive to the creation of the subject since it determines what each subject considers intrinsic to its identity and what exists externally as an façade.Ethical theories to evaluate the will face a dilemma – they are either paternally objectivist to the extent they restrict the will, or they are weakened by subjectivism to the extent that it’s impossible to make true moral claims. Jaeggi 14, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. From the perspective of liberal theory one aspect of the critique of alienation appears problematic above all others: theories of alienation appear to appeal to objective criteria that lie beyond the "sovereignty" of individuals to interpret for themselves what the good life consists in. Herbert Marcuse exemplifies this tendency of many theories of alienation in One Dimensional Man—a book that provided a crucial impulse for the New Left’s critique of alienation in the 1960s and 1970s— when, unconcerned with the liberal objection, he defends the validity of diagnoses of alienation with respect to the increased integration and identification with social relations that characterize the members of affluent industrial societies: "I have just suggested that the concept of alienation seems to become questionable when the individuals identify themselves with the existence which is imposed upon them and have in it their own development and satisfaction. This identification is not illusion, but reality. However, the reality constitutes a more progressive stage of alienation. The latter has become entirely objective; the subject which is alienated is swallowed up by its alienated existence."10 The subjective satisfaction of those who are integrated into objectively alienated relations is, according to Marcuse, "a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood."11 Here, however, the theory of alienation appears to have made itself immune to refutation. It would seem, then, that the concept of alienation belongs to a perfectionist ethical theory that presupposes, broadly speaking, that it is possible to determine what is objectively good for humans by identifying a set of properties or a set of functions inherent in human nature—a "purpose"—that ought to be realized. But if the foundation of modern morality and the fundamental conviction of liberal conceptions of society is the idea "that it should be left to each individual how he lives his own life" 12—that individuals are sovereign with respect to interpreting their own lives—then a theory of alienation that relies on objective perfectionist ideals appears to reject this idea in favor of a paternalist perspective that claims to "know better." For the latter (and as seems to be the case for Marcuse), it is possible for something to count as objectively good for someone without him subjectively valuing it as such. By the same token, it is possible to criticize a form of life as alienated or false without there being any subjective perception of suffering. But can someone be alienated from herself in the sense outlined here if she herself fails to perceive it? Can we claim of someone that she is alienated from her own desires or driven by false (alienated) needs or that she pursues an alienated way of life if she claims to be living precisely the life she wants to lead? In diagnoses of alienation the question arises, then, whether there can be objective evidence of pathology that contradicts individuals’ subjective assessments or preferences. This is a dilemma that is difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the concept of alienation (this is what distinguishes it from weaker forms of critique) claims to be able to bring to individuals’ prima facie evaluations and preferences a deeper dimension of critique—a critical authority—that functions as a corrective to their own assertions. On the other hand, it is not easy to justify the position of such a critical corrective. What could the objective criteria that overrule the assessments and preferences of individuals be in this case? 13 The arguments from human nature frequently appealed to in this context demonstrate, even in their most methodologically sophisticated, "thin" variants, the problems that plague attempts to derive normative standards from some conception of human nature. 14 Even if there is—in a banal sense—something humans share on the basis of their natural, biological constitution, and even if—in a banal sense—certain functional needs can be derived from these basic presuppositions of human life (all humans need nourishment or certain climatic conditions in order to survive), these basic conditions imply very little when it comes to evaluating how humans, in relation to issues beyond mere survival, lead their lives. On the other hand, the more human nature is given a specific content such that it becomes relevant to (culturally specific) forms of life, the more controversial and contestable the claims become. How are we to define human nature when its extraordinary variability and malleability appear to be part of human nature itself?15 And how are we to pick out among diverse forms of human life those that really correspond to human nature, given that even forms of life criticized as alienated have been in some way developed, advanced, and lived by human beings? Only a functional understanding of the will solves – it ensures the very nature of the will is taken care of through appropriate willing capacities, without over-limiting it to a strict set of substantive rules. This functional capacity of willing is mediated by social roles – as the authentic self is inexplicably linked to the self that engages in social communities with others through duplication. Understanding the functionality of the will is impossible in a vacuum. Jaeggi 2, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. The positions of both authors can be reduced to the following common denominator: roles are less alienating than constitutive for the development of persons and personality. They are constitutive in the sense that they are directly bound up with a person’s development and, so, "productive." At first glance this position might seem to come down on one side of the two alternatives—an unconditional affirmation of roles—but after giving a brief account of the position, I will make use of it to move beyond the two alternatives. Once the "productivity thesis" has been articulated, it will be possible to distinguish between alienating and non-alienating aspects of role behavior. THE HUMAN BEING AS DOPPELGÄNGER Roles are productive. In and through them we first become ourselves. This is the essence of Helmuth Plessner’s conception of the positive significance of roles (which he developed as a direct response to critiques of them as alienating). "The human being is always himself only in ‘doubling’ in relation to a role figure he can experience. Also, all that he sees as comprising his authenticity is but the role he plays before himself and others.22 Roles on this view are not only necessary in order to make social interaction possible, whether this be a "being together" of individuals or a benign "passing each other by;" interaction mediated by roles is also constitutive of an individual’s relation to herself.This culminates in the act of appropriation – the ability to view yourself as a practical agent capable of taking up a project that actively changes your own subject and the role itself. Jaeggi 3, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. What does it mean to appropriate something?12 If the concept of appropriation refers to a specific relation between self and world, between individuals and objects (whether spiritual or material), what precisely does this relation look like, what are its particular character and its specific structure? Various aspects come together here, and together they account for the concept’s appeal and potential. As opposed to the mere learning of certain contents, talk of appropriation emphasizes that something is not merely passively taken up but actively worked through and independently assimilated. In contrast to merely theoretical insight into some issue, appropriation—comparable to the psychoanalytic process of "working through"—means that one can "deal with" what one knows, that it stands at one’s disposal as knowledge and that one really and practically has command over it. And appropriating a role means more than being able to fill it: one is, we could say, identified with it. Something that we appropriate does not remain external to ourselves. In making something our own, it becomes a part of ourselves in a certain respect. This suggests a kind of introjection and a mixing of oneself with the objects of appropriation. It also evokes the idea of productively and formatively interacting with what one makes one’s own. Appropriation does not leave what is appropriated unchanged. This is why the appropriation of public spaces, for example, means more than that one uses them. We make them our own by making a mark on them through what we do in and with them, by transforming them through appropriative use such that they first acquire a specific form through this use (though not necessarily in a material sense). Although it has one of its roots in an account of property relations, the concept of appropriation, in contrast to mere possession, emphasizes the particular quality of a process that first constitutes a real act of taking possession of something. Accordingly, appropriation is a particular mode of seizing possession.13 Someone who appropriates something puts her individual mark on it, inserts her own ends and qualities into it. This means that sometimes we must still make something that we already possess our own. Relations of appropriation, then, are characterized by several features: appropriation is a form of praxis, a way of relating practically to the world. It refers to a relation of penetration, assimilation, and internalization in which what is appropriated is at the same time altered, structured, and formed. The crucial point of this model (also of great importance for Marx) is a consequence of this structure of penetration and assimilation: appropriation always means a transformation of both poles of the relation. In a process of appropriation both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed.Thus, the standard is consistency with non-alienated relations.Prefer –1. Performativity – Every exercise you engage in is an instance of using your volition to establish some relation to the world and only non-alienation can establish that relationship as normatively legitimate.2. Action theory – Only viewing an agent as an active body capable of generating intentions can hold agents culpable and decipher the difference between actions and wishes. That’s a necessary feature of ethics since we must be able to warrant a coherent conception of what motivates our actions in order to provide a method to actually implement ethical principles.3. Epistemology – Only an understanding of appropriation can unify the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Theoretical abstract concepts like 2+24 are true and necessary, but can only become useful once explained in context of how they actualize in the world through our intentions. That means absent an explanation of how that knowledge mixes with the world around us, it becomes useless. ==== offenseI contend that member nations of the WTO ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.~1~ Intellectual property is a self-expression of the subject. When it’s used in a way that doesn’t reflect the framer’s intent, it is alienating.Justin Hughes 98, "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ AHSMAK recut emi Accessed 8/10/21 AND permanence and a greater ability than other property to give its own economic security ~2~ IP is key to recognizing agents through the personality in their work. Recognition is necessary for agents to be non-alienated bc we need to establish relations with the world.Hughes 2 - "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) by Justin Hughes ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ ahs emi AND is destroyed; when the second condition is violated, it is distorted. ~3~ Objectification - Absent intellectual property, agents feel like objects since they aren’t recognized for their exercise of agency. This procedurally prevents further appropriation bc agents lack incentive to innovate when they’re detached from their goods. | 9/19/21 |
so - waivers tTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: Affirmatives must reduce intellectual property protections for medicines unconditionally and permanently.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: The waiver is temporary.Gupta and Namboodiri 21: Gupta, Vineeta ~a maternal and child health physician, human rights advocate, and a passionate activist for health equity. As director, she leads the ACTION Global Health Advocacy Partnership as well as a volunteer-based policy advocacy organization that unites the Indian diaspora to mount a prompt, global response to the COVID-19 crisis in India. Dr. Gupta has more than 20 years of tri-sector experience in leading and supporting projects in more than 25 countries. In addition to conducting organization development, diversity, inclusion, equity, and global health equity workshops, Gupta has designed and facilitated partnership projects to achieve agreements and results on complex issues. She has been invited to speak in more than 60 universities in the US and Europe.~ Namboodiri, Sreenath ~LLM, LLB, is assistant professor at the School of Ethics, Governance, Culture and Social Systems at Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth and a post-graduate on law of intellectual property rights (IPR) from Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi. His areas of interest are in intellectual property rights vis-à-vis health systems, sustainable development and innovation, pharmaceutical patents, knowledge governance, and technology and law. He is an honorary fellow of the Centre for Economy, Development, and Law since 2013. Namboodiri is part of the editorial team of Elenchus Law Review, a biannual peer-reviewed journal from the Centre (CEDandL). He has also worked as a guest lecturer in Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi, where he provided courses on access to medicine and IP, and patents and biotechnology~ "America And The TRIPS Waiver: You Can Talk The Talk, But Will You Walk The Walk?," July 13, 2021 AA AND so far the US has not gone further than its announcement of support. No plan text in a vacuum – the offense defines what the plan looks like. Worst case scenario, you vote neg on presumption because all their solvency evidence is about a waiver.Prefer my interpretation:1~ Limits: they open the door to an infinite number of affs – from any condition to any time restriction. Each one becomes its own new aff.2~ Ground: condition and delay counterplans are all ground we are entitled to because they disprove the idea of passing the plan right now.3~ Topic lit: authors aren’t writing about a reduction that happens a few years or now or under a specific condition.4~ Semantics: not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution. | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/19/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/18/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/19/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/19/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
|