Opponent: Christopher Columbus AM | Judge: Will Clark
1ac - rawls 1n- libertarianism 2 das 1ar- rawls 2n- lib quick da 2ar- rawls
Valley
2
Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Tajaih Robinson
1ac- agonism afc 1n- gauthier spec fairness edu 1ar- may not negate extinction first 2n- gathier spec fairness 2ar- independent voter extinction first
Valley
4
Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat
1ac- util covid aff 1n- util k hijackt - waivers innovation da 1ar- hidden indexicals util covid advantage 2n- util k 2ar- indexicals hack against them
Yale
1
Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Victor Chen
1ac- deleuze 1n- util china DA T 1ar- deleuzeROB 2n- t 2ar- deleuzeROB
Yale
4
Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: David McGinnis
1ac- cap 1n- tt no impact justified theory contracts case 1ar- cap responses 2n- no impact justified theory 2ar- rvis
Yale
5
Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Grant Brown
1ac- corona vaccine ac 1n- no vaccines T must spec type of util determinism TT
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0 - Contact Info
Tournament: ANY | Round: Finals | Opponent: ANY | Judge: ANY Hey! I am Nick, I use he/him pronouns. If you want me to make any accommodations or give content warnings let me know before the round.
Phone: 754-237-9225 Email: pl242601@ahschool.com Facebook: Nicholas Randazzo
Here is how this wiki is organized:
0 - Contact info G - Generics SO - September-October ND - November-December JF - January-February MA - March-April
I am on the right side of the race war.
9/17/21
G - K - Util
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat K Utilitarianism is morally repugnant:
Util justifies atrocities since it justifies allowing us to harm some for the benefit of others – even if they spew some pain quantifiability argument that doesn’t solve since there are still instances some get great benefit from others harm. 2. Util can’t justify intrinsic wrongness – We can’t know whether our action was good until we’ve evaluated the states of affairs they’ve produced since it’s based on the outcome of the action. For Example if asked the question “is x okay?” a utilitarian would not be able to say yes because there are situations in which it would be morally obligatory to do so if it maximized pleasure. Probability doesn’t solve because that just allows for moral error and freezes action while attempting to calculate the perfect decision. 3. Utilitarianism would justify that death is good—the absence of pleasure is not bad, and the absence of pain is good, so being nonexistent is best under util. This puts the affirmative in a double bind: Either A) we intuitively know killing people is wrong in which case you reject util out of principle or B) they condone death as good in which case their advantage would flow neg. Two Impacts: 1 It triggers permissibility since they can’t generate a correct moral obligation that justifies affirming. That negates: A) 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 and B) 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. 2 They read morally repugnant arguments. Thus the alternative is to drop the debater, to ensure that debate remains a space safe for all – the judge has a proximal obligation to ensure inaccessible practices don’t proliferate. Accessibility is a voting issue since all aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them.
9/26/21
G - NC - Determinism
Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Grant Brown Determinism negates— The aff says IP ought to be, but the action of not reducing one is predetermined making statements that prescribe doing otherwise incoherent. Disproves obligations since there’s no way we could fulfill them Determinism is true – 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 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 All these experiments ... absence of consciousness” (Vierkant et al., 2013). 3 Logic — We can make true claims about the future. “I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow” Maybe I don’t know if that prediction is correct or not, but it is in fact either correct or incorrect. And if statements about the future are already true or false then there’s no chance things will turn out differently
9/25/21
G - ROB - Truth Testing
Tournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: David McGinnis The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolutional statement is true or false by a substantively justified ethical framework:
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. Their 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—independently justifies elitist capitalism which their fw says is bad. 2. Isomorphism: ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it’s solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn’t a closest estimate.
9/18/21
G - Shell - Must Spec Type of Util
Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Grant Brown Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1ac. Each nuance of the ethic entails different obligations and would exclude different offense – there are 7 different versions. Mastin, Luke Mastin, Consequentialism, The basics of philosophy http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html Some consequentialist theories include: Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people ("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain). Hedonism, which is the philosophy holds that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind, and that individuals should strive to maximise their own total pleasure (net of any pain or suffering). Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure). Egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. Thus, Egoism may license actions which are good for an individual even if detrimental to the general welfare. Asceticism, in some ways, the opposite of Egoism in that it describes a life characterized by abstinence from egoistic pleasures especially to achieve a spiritual goal. Altruism, which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone except for himself, according to Auguste Comte's dictum, "Live for others". Thus, individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self-interest. Rule Consequentialism, which is a theory (sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile Consequentialism and Deontology), holds that moral behaviour involves following certain rules, but that those rules should be chosen based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. Some theorists holds that a certain set of minimal rules are necessary to ensure appropriate actions, while some hold that the rules are not absolute and may be violated if strict adherence to the rule would lead to much more undesirable consequences. Negative Consequentialism, which focuses on minimizing bad consequences rather than promoting good consequences. This may actually require active intervention (to prevent harm from being done), or may only require passive avoidance of bad outcomes. B. Violation: They don’t and maximizing expected well-being doesn’t cut it. Crisp, Roger, "Well-Being", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/well-being/. Well-being is most ... to their well-being. C. Standards:
Shiftiness – They can shift out of my turns based on whatever theory of the good they operate under due to the nature of a vague standard. Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of consequentialism as coming first and I wouldn’t know until the 1ar which gives them access to multiple contingent standards. 2. Strat – I lose 6 minutes of time during the AC to generate a strategy because I don't know what turns or strategy I can go for during the 1N absent which proves CX doesn’t check since it would occur after the skew. 3. Resolvability – Makes the round irresolvable since we can’t weigh different mechanisms for the good – Benatar would probably link harder under a hedonistic conception of util – weighing ground is key since it ensures we can compare arguments that clash to access the ballot. Voters –
9/25/21
G - Shell - Must Weigh Between Voters
Tournament: Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Tajaih Robinson A: If the aff reads multiple theoretical voters, they must stipulate in the ac which theory voter comes first. B: They violate. C. Standards.
Strategy Skew. Without taking a stance on which voter comes first, they can split my time between their fairness and education offense in the 2n and then collapse to one of the voters and weighing for why it comes first in the 2ar. 1n weighing is insufficient because they can dump on that weighing for 3 mins 2ar and then the 2n will never recover. Also, independently kills clash because they won’t engage my arguments since they can collapse. Strategy skew’s key to fairness because I need a strategy to win the round. Clash is key to education because it’s the constitutive educational benefit of debate.
9/25/21
G - Shell - No Impact Justified Frameworks
Tournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: David McGinnis A: Interpretation – Debaters must only read normatively justified frameworks. B: Violation – You read an impact justified framework by justifying your cap framing with reasons capitalism is bad, rather than starting from a metaphysical truth claim about morality that can justify a comprehensive theory of what is right and wrong. C: Standards—
Strat skew – Reading an impact justified framework destroys my strategy: Turn ground – it artificially exclude impacts from a larger framework that would justify your impact being bad which means you can cherry pick any impact that flows one direction. Strat skew controls the internal link to fairness because it’s impossible for me to debate absent a coherent accessible strategy to engage. 2. Phil ed – Impact justified framework destroy phil ed: Justification – impact justification destroys the requirement to learn concepts like normativity, metaphysics, meta-ethics, and other types of justifications for frameworks since all you need is reasons why one impact is bad Voters – Fairness is a voter since debate is a competitive activity that intrinsically requires an equal shot at winning. Education is a voter since it’s the reason schools fund debate and its ultimate impact. DD – a) to deter future abuse, b) otherwise they could just kick and go for the positive time tradeoff on theory, c) the round has been skewed so theory is the only fair place to vote CI – a) reasonability requires judge intervention because I don’t know where your BS meter is, and b) reasonability creates a race to the bottom since it motivates debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away with them by playing defense on theory. No RVIs – a) It’s illogical to vote for you for being fair, rounds without theory would be irresolvable b) It incentivizes you to bait theory and win off a scripted CI. Fairness first— A) Evaluation – using their theory presupposes that it is true, but with a fairness skew it becomes impossible to know since I couldn’t have tested it so cross-applications don’t work B) Inescapable – every argument you make concedes the authority of fairness: i.e. that the judge will evaluate your arguments. If they win fairness doesn’t matter hack against them. C) Quality of discussion – even if it’s true that the scholarship they introduce is valuable, if I can’t answer the aff then there’s no point to reading the position.
9/18/21
G - Util FW
Tournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Victor Chen Revisionary intuitionism is reliable and leads to util. ELIEZER YUDKOWSKY 8, "The "Intuitions" Behind "Utilitarianism"", 1-28-2008, http://lesswrong.com/lw/n9/the_intuitions_behind_utilitarianism/ I haven't said ...things left undone. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer it: 1 Actor specificity: A Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action. B States lack wills or intentions since policies are collective actions. C No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation. Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action. 2 Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. Any standard is an interpretation of the word ought – thus framework is functionally a topicality argument about how to define the terms of the resolution. Prefer my definition: A Textuality: 1 Oxford dictionary defines ought as “Used to indicate a desirable or expected state.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought 2 Ought entails an ends-based calculus of maximizing expected well-being. Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2010). AHS AD But this notion ... and human well-being. 3 Moral hedging—we ought to maximize the probability of being morally correct instead of choosing just one theory Boey 13 Grace Boey “Is applied ethics applicable enough? Acting and hedging under moral uncertainty” 3 Quarks Daily December 16th 2013 http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/12/is-applied-ethics-applicable-enough-acting-under-moral-uncertainty.html JW A runaway train ...with analysis paralysis.
9/18/21
ND - Business Confidence DA
Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 2 | Opponent: Christopher Columbus AM | Judge: Will Clark Business confidence high now Conference Board 5/19 Conference Board. “The Conference Board Measure of CEO Confidence™.” CEO Confidence Hit All-Time High in Q2 | The Conference Board, 19 May 2021, www.conference-board.org/research/CEO-Confidence/. Another Quarter of ... from 36 in Q1. A shift toward pro-union policies cause fear in business John DiNardo University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and NBER David S. Lee UC Berkeley and NBER https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/unionbf.pdf It is widely ... international capital mobility. Business confidence dictates growth McQuarie 16 McQuarie, Economic risk consulting firm, 5 factors that impact business and consumer confidence, 25 May 2016 https://www.macquarie.com/au/advisers/expertise/market-insights/business-consumer-confidence-australia TR In 1933, US .. risk-taking is curtailed. Nuclear War Tønnesson 15 Stein Tønnesson, PhD from the University of Oslo, is research professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO), adjunct professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research,Uppsala University where he leads a six-year research programme on the East AsianPeace, associate editor for Asia in the Journal of Peace Research, International Area Studies Review, 2015, Vol. 18(3), “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace”, 297–311 Several recent works ... Beijing to intervene. Nuke war causes extinction PND 16. internally citing Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council of Foreign Relations and former national security adviser to President Carter, Toon and Robock’s 2012 study on nuclear winter in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Gareth Evans’ International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Report, Congressional EMP studies, studies on nuclear winter by Seth Baum of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, and U.S. and Russian former Defense Secretaries and former heads of nuclear missile forces, brief submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear risks. A/AC.286/NGO/13. 05-03-2016. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/OEWG/2016/Documents/NGO13.pdfRe-cut by Elmer Consequences human survival ... Nagasaki as well.
10/30/21
ND - Libertarianism
Tournament: Blue Key | Round: 2 | Opponent: Christopher Columbus AM | Judge: Will Clark I negate that A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. First, discourse is the foundation of ethics. Moral frameworks are only justified and tested for truth via the process of rational argumentation and justification. Even if a theory does derive truth without language, it still relies on human expression to be articulated which concedes its authority. Second, discourse must be undeniable. Even if a framework is logically justified, we can always ask “why be moral” or “why care” which prevents it from having universal authority since it can be denied. The only solution to this is to find a framework that produces performative contradiction, where denying its ethical truth is contradictory to discourse itself. Thus the standard is constituency with Libertarianism, or the idea that freedom is valuable and we ought to refrain from coercion. Any attempt to justify a violation of property rights commits performative contradiction. Marian Eabrasu, Research fellow at the GRANEM (Angers University), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, 03/13/2009, https://mises.org/library/reply-current-critiques-formulated-against-hoppeE28099s-argumentation-ethics/AHS PB Hoppe observes that ... right to tax. Hoppe 2006, 388 Prefer the standard: 1 It’s a contradiction for the state to violate freedom since the government only derives its authority from people agreeing to follow it, but if a citizen decides they no longer want to follow the government, the government no longer has authority to regulate them. 2 Goodness is subjective so only procedural ethics matter. Pidgen , For any naturalistic ... does not mean ‘X’. 3 Only Libertarianism can answer why be moral. Bruno Verbeek, University of Leiden, Summarizes Naveson, Published in Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism, Malcolm Murray (ed.). Ashgate, 2007. Pp. 273., https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16519/Verbeek_Murray-Corrections.pdf?sequence=4/AHS PB Narveson’s position can ... and the market. 4 Only evaluate the intent of actions: A) Consequentialist ethics are incompatible with libertarianism since it would justify the state violating rights to achieve a desired end B) Inductive logic is infinitely regressive, since every induction about the world is justified through a previous induction, which doesn’t prove what will happen in the future C) consequences always trigger more consequences, so determining the final consequence is impossible and D) Util can never call certain things always wrong, since the ends would decide in that particular instance. Offense 1 Unions violate property rights Peter Levine, “The Libertarian Critique of Labor Unions”, Fall 2001, http://www.peterlevine.ws/Libertarian_Critique.pdf swickle Libertarians strongly defend ... of them oppose. 2 The right to strike necessarily involves violating the right to property and contract – it’s coercive, Gourevitch 16, Alex Gourevitch “Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike.” Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049//LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 recut AHSNPR A second problem ... refuse to perform?
10/30/21
SO - Case Turn - Treaty Abrogation
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat US treaty abrogation breaks the foundations of international law Koplow 13 - David Koplow Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Applied Legal Studies at Georgetown University Law Center, former Special Counsel for Arms Control to the DOD General Counsel, Winter 2013, “Indisputable Violations: What Happens When the United States Unambiguously Breaches a Treaty?” Fletcher Forum of International Affairs Vol. 37:1, http://www.fletcherforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Koplow_37-1.pdfcdm However, there is ... disregard those mechanisms.
9/26/21
SO - DA - Innovation
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry ... and required levels. Private sector innovation is key to solve climate change – short term politicking and priority shifts means government can’t solve alone. Henry 17, Simon. “Climate Change Cannot Be Solved by Governments Alone. How Can the Private Sector Help?” World Economic Forum, 21 Nov. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/governments-alone-cannot-halt-climate-change-what-can-private-sector-do/. Programme Director, International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) sid Climate leadership is ... of their businesses. Warming causes Extinction Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six ... and climate change.
Unlike some more-traditional... a good environment.53 IP protection is key to strengthening Chinese economy by switching to innovative drug production. Chen and Li 20 - “A Study of the Influence of Intellectual Property on China–U.S. Trade Relations” by Wei Li (Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China) and Yichao Chen (Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020915899 ahs emi Numerous related studies ...its economic growth. They Continue… The China–U.S. trade ... a win–win situation. Chinese economic decline sparks war—it becomes china’s only way to galvanize support Carpenter ’15: Ted Galen Carpenter senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, National Interest, 9-6-2015 "Could China's Economic Troubles Spark a War?", "https://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-chinas-economic-troubles-spark-war-13784" Global attention has ...for all concerned. Chinese-US war goes nuclear. Littlefield and Lowther 15 - Dr. Adam Lowther is Director, School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies, Air Force Global Strike Command. Alex Littlefield is a professor at Feng Chia University. (Alex Littlefield and Adam Lowther, “Taiwan and the Prospects for War Between China and America”, The Diplomat, 8/11/2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/taiwan-and-the-prospects-for-war-between-china-and-america/) As declassified government ...crisis or capitulate. Extinction – nuke war fallout creates Ice Age and mass starvation Steven Starr 15. “Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen.” Ratical. March 2015. https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/StevenStarr022815.html TG A war fought ...Earth essentially uninhabitable.
9/18/21
SO - Hijack - Contracts
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat Contracts hijack util –
Pleasure and pain are only motivational to the individual who senses them, which means only a system of mutual self-restraint can enter agents into binding agreements to respect each others’ pleasure and pain. 2. Even if there is an external source of the good, pain and pleasure are only examples of things that agents might find motivational, its not a wholistic account of everyone’s self-interest which means only contracts can ensure agents follow ethical principles. That negates: 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 Commonly, FDI and ... increases after that.
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 The most important ... intellectual property law.
9/26/21
SO - NC - Gauthier
Tournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: David McGinnis I value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:
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. 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 Fortunately, I do not ... conflict with it.
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. Use Epistemic Modesty – A) Virtue –we should never be 100 confident in our ethical beliefs B) Probability – it maximizes the likelihood we come to the best ethical conclusion if we consider several moral frameworks. 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 –
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. 3. Neg gets framework choice – a) aff speaks first and last which means they control the direction of the round b) infinite pre-round prep means they’re prepared for any debate – prep controls quality of arguments c) they get one more speech to contextualize arguments in different ways.
Contention I 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 Commonly, FDI and ... increases after that.
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 The most important ...intellectual property law.
9/18/21
SO - NC - Gauthier v2
Tournament: Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Tajaih Robinson I value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:
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 Relatedly, internalism about ... of us are). 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 Fortunately, I do ... conflict with it.
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 –
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. And, affs must not read new offense in the 1AR related to a new FW, recontextualize or weigh aff arguments under a different FW, or turn the 1nc FW. they violate if they read turns. A Phil Clash- anything else allows them to concede all our framework interactions instead of defending the aff. B Skew- They have an inherent advantage on the contention debate since they can j read 4 mins of turns and get 2ar spin so they can easily sway judge psychology in contention debates that don’t err towards one side. C Depth over Breadth- prevents the debate from being split over fwk and substance which is necessary to refine ideas while vague debates result in inept clash. D Planks Solves- because if the topic doesn’t actually negate you can put defense on the contention level.
Contention I 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 Commonly, FDI and ...increases after that.
9/25/21
SO - T - Reduce is not Eliminate
Tournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Victor Chen Interpretation- Debaters must defend a reduction in intellectual property protection on medicines. Violation- Reduce is not eliminate Words and Phrases 1914, http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcoverandid=IJMNAAAAYAAJ#v=onepageandqandf=false Swickle REDUCE Rev. Laws, c. 203, § 9, provides that... an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N. E. 595, 596, 188 Mass. 303. Reduce is not eliminate Michigan District court, (“SAGINAW OFFICE SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-CV-13889 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION,” Lexis) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-4_09-cv-13889/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-4_09-cv-13889-2.pdf Swickle In determining whether ...subset of diminution.
Standards 1 Semantics are a constraint on voting aff: A Jurisdiction: They’re aff but not affirming the res. That’s an indepdent voter since the ballot asks who does the better debating in the context of the res. B The topic is the only shared basis we have for preround prep and inround clash on a stable advocacy. Pragmatics only matter if we have a topic to debate. 2 Limits: Being able to defend something not topical allows you to choose any scenario in the world with no limits. Kills fairness since I have to prep for every aff while they have to prep for one. Even if there are some responses, the NC will always get destroyed by 1AR frontlines to generics. Also kills education because it forces a lack of engagement, resulting in up layering and shallow debates – outweighs – even if your interp is best for education we don’t access it since I can’t engage. 3 Topic lit: the literature talking about intellectual property rights is about reductions of intellectual property rights ie the TRIPS waiver. Topic lit is key to a. predictability- what we prep is based on the literature that we read and find on the internet and b. real world education- everyone in the real world is advocating for a reduction of ip rights so we should to. Real world education ows other types of education since the only reason we learn stuff is so we can apply it to the real world. 4 Ground: full elimination takes away neg K and CP ground and makes it aff arguments - on a topic that is already super aff skewed in terms of persuasive literature, the neg has to be able to argue the aff doesn't go far enough. It also moots DAs- DAs are written in the context of a reform not an elimination. Even if our links would hypothetically be stronger, we havent prepped those links because they were unpredictable.
9/18/21
SO - T - Vaccines
Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Monta Vista KR | Judge: Grant Brown Interpretation: The affirmative debater must defend reducing intellectual property protections for substances that treat diseases. To clarify, they may not defend substances that prevent diseases. Medicines treat diseases Webster (Merriam Webster is America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information, accessed on 6-30-21, Merriam Webster, "Definition of MEDICINE,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine)// ww pbj Definition of medicine ... disease cough medicine And, Treatment is different than prevention Pflanzer 20 (Lydia Ramsey Pflanzer is a healthcare editor for Business Insider. She joined Business Insider in 2015 after graduating from Northwestern University, 4-29-2020, accessed 6/30/21, "Scientists are racing to discover ways to treat and prevent coronavirus. Here's the difference between a treatment and a vaccine.," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-vaccine-and-a-treatment-2020-4)//ww pbj Vaccines are used ... with antibody treatments. Violation: Vaccines specifically are different from medicines Immunize BC 20 (Immunize British Colombia is a collaborative project of the BC Ministry of Health, the BC Centre for Disease Control (an agency of the BC Provincial Health Services Authority), the regional health authorities (First Nations Health Authority, Fraser Health, Interior Health, Island Health, Northern Health and Vancouver Coastal Health), the BC Pharmacy Association and the Public Health Association of BC. Our mission is to improve the health of British Columbians by continuing to reduce the number of vaccine-preventable diseases, along with the illness, disability and death that they cause, What are vaccines?, Date last reviewed: Thursday, Mar 19, 2020, accessed on 6-30-21, https://immunizebc.ca/what-are-vaccines)//ww pbj Vaccines are products ... the first place. Prefer – A) Intent to delineate – this author compares vaccines vs medicines with the purpose of articulating their differences, which means it’s more specific B) Field Context – It’s from the centre of disease control which is most proximal to the medical industry that controls the legitimate definitions for the topic. We should listen to lawyers about law and medical professionals about what counts as medicine.
Standards: 1 Limits – they explode the topic to include tons of substances that prevent disease rather than treat them like soap, medical supplies, or food and make it so there is no unified neg generics. The aff still gets the core of the topic lit: they get medicine, innovation, and global inequality. Explosion of aff ground makes neg prep burden impossible, either killing neg ground or forcing the neg to read generics that barely link, always letting aff win. Our interp solves – it establishes a clear bright-line for that gives the neg a chance to predict and prepare for every aff ahead of time. At best, the aff’s extra-T still links to all our offense since they can get extra-T advantages to solve disads and defend whatever they want, magnifying limits. 2 Precision – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which a means they’re not within the topic which is a voter for jurisdiction since you can only vote affirmative on the resolution and this debate never should have happened, b they’re unpredictable and impossible to engage in so we always lose
Voters - 1 Semantics first a Jurisdiction: They’re aff but not affirming the res. That’s an independent voter since the ballot asks who does the better debating in the context of the res. b The topic is the only shared basis we have for preround prep and in round clash on a stable advocacy. Pragmatics only matter if we have a topic to debate. It justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducational c Neg definition choice: The aff should have defined medicines in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition. This would be like reading a brand new util framework in the 1ar, which kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition. 2 Fairness and education first a Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness comes prior to substantive debate. a Education is the only reason schools fund and it has out of round impacts. DTD on neg theory a drop the argument incentivizes abusive affs that bait theory and then collapse to substance – means neg always loses. b AC’s have the advantage of being able to spam blippy and abusive topic interps in the AC that are really short – means each one becomes a no risk apriori issue. No aff rvi’s: A. incentivizes aff to read abusive interps and arguments and just focus on prepping a long counterinterp to always win, B. creates a chilling effect – aff is uniquely dangerous on theory because they get to read a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize: negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse. C. RVI’s motivate the aff to go all in on theory in the 1a instead of both theory and substance which is worse for substantive education. Prefer competing interps to reasonability because reasonability a. has no bright line for mitigating a shell b. invites huge judge intervention because thresholds for “unreasonable” abuse are different and c. creates a race to the bottom with both debaters being as abusive as they can conceivably justify.
9/25/21
SO - T - Waivers
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Breigh Plat T Interpretation: The aff must reduce the total number of patents that exist Definitions: 1 Reduce means According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, No Date “Reduce” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce Accessed 8/25/21 SAO Definition of reduce ... an unstressed vowel 2 Waivers are according to Cambridge 21 - Cambridge Business English Dictionary, Updated August 18th, 2021 “Waiver” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/waiver Accessed 8/25/21 SAO Waiver Noun: an ... state income taxes. Violation: Vaccine waivers do not eliminate the patents; they just allow people to produce and distribute the vaccine while companies still own the formula. Standards 1 Ground: The aff interp allows them to link out of core neg ground relating to patent reduction. I don’t get access to the drug innovation, science leadership, or biotech DAs or waiver CPs. 2 Shiftiness: Waivers allow companies to reclaim rights at a later date. This destabilizes uniqueness and ensures no long-term link chains. Also key to truth testing since the resolution isn’t temporally modified. 3 Limits: Changing patents but not reducing are unpredictable and kill clash which is k2 education and fairness Voters 1 Semantics first: A Jurisdiction: They’re aff but not affirming the res. That’s an independent voter since the ballot asks who does the better debating in the context of the res. B Limits: The topic is the only shared basis we have for preround prep and in-round clash on a stable advocacy. Pragmatics only matter if we have a topic to debate. Kills fairness since I have to prep for every aff while they have to prep for one. Even if there are some responses, the NC will always get destroyed by 1AR frontlines to generics. Also kills education because it forces a lack of engagement shallow debates which turns ed standards First, vote on fairness. Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. Second, education, schools fund debate for its education value, and only education has out of round impacts. Drop the debater on T: A. drop the arg is severance—it lets them read new args in the 1AR and connect the plan to the whole res B. drop the argument incentivizes abusive affs that bait theory and then collapse to substance by kicking case or extending tricks – means neg always loses. C. 2ar collapse ensures the aff will always win if they have free range of arguments – drop the debater is key to neg layering. No aff RVI on T: A. they shouldn’t win for being topical because it’s their burden B. incentivizes aff to read abusive interps and arguments and just focus on prepping a long counterinterp to always win, C. creates a chilling effect – aff is uniquely dangerous on theory because they get to read a long counterinterp in the 1ar and then get the 2ar to collapse, weigh, and contextualize: negs would always be disincentives from reading theory against good theory debaters which leads to infinite abuse. Prefer competing interps to reasonability because reasonability a. has no bright line for mitigating a shell b. invites huge judge intervention because thresholds for “unreasonable” abuse are different and c. creates a race to the bottom with both debaters being as abusive as they can conceivably justify.