| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 2 | Murrah PH | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 4 | Northland Christian LB | Chris Castillo |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 2 | James Logan AD | Jason Yang |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 3 | Christopher Columbus NG | Matt Contreras |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Dougherty Valley TM | Victoria Yonter |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | Doubles | Homestead SL | Abhishek Rao, Asher Towner, Joseph Barquin |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Bergen County Academies AK | Abhinav Sinha |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Harvard Weslake JH |
|
|
| ||
| Loyola | 5 | Taft EL | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| TOC | Finals | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Finals | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Octas | You | Me |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 2 | Opponent: Murrah PH | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1AC - Korsgaard Util Adv |
| Grapevine | 4 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Chris Castillo 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Jack Howe | 2 | Opponent: James Logan AD | Judge: Jason Yang 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Jack Howe | 3 | Opponent: Christopher Columbus NG | Judge: Matt Contreras 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley TM | Judge: Victoria Yonter 1AC - Korsgaard Consult Bad Theory |
| Jack Howe | Doubles | Opponent: Homestead SL | Judge: Abhishek Rao, Asher Towner, Joseph Barquin 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Abhinav Sinha 1AC - Korsgaard Util Adv |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Harvard Weslake JH | Judge: 1AC - Kant Util adv |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Taft EL | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Korsgaard Util Adv |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InformationTournament: TOC | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 9/11/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: TOC | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 8/13/21 |
2 - ROB - Truth TestingTournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Murrah PH | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield | 9/11/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - KorsgaardTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Abhinav Sinha 1AC1AC – FramingEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Empirical uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible~D~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~A~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. That hijacks roles of the ballots since the judge is one such practical identity, and other frameworks since implies first valuing ourselves to value other normative judgements~B~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~C~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify action because we intend the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral or not. ~D~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~E~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~F~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine ~D~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – ~a~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you’d believe me. ~b~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason. ~c~ Otherwise we’d have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. ~d~ If anything is permissible, then definitionally so is the aff since there is nothing that prevents us from doing it.Impact calc: ~A~ There’s an act/omission distinction – otherwise we’d be held infinitely culpable for every omission which kills any conception of morality.AdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Intellectual property protection violates the formula of autonomy – multiple warrants.Hale 18 Zachary A., 4-4-2018, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection," Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/ JG AND to the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. ~2~ States shouldn’t be forced to submit to a legal framework outside of their own anarchic conditions – that’s a violation of their own choice which is a contradiction in will.~3~ People can invent things at the same time – under IP one person is blocked from their invention which is a violation of their ability to pursue civil rights like expression, and to share in scientific advancements.~4~ IP treats humans as merely a means to an end driving for personal corporate profit which means its intrinsically a violation of the omnilateral will.~5~ Any human should not have the authority to dictate whether someone should lose their life – it’s a contradiction in conception because scientists and WTO officials willing someone to die is incoherent because life would cease to exist. When they allow for patents to be created, they will for marginalized groups to die via lack of access to medicine.AdvantageIndia is in crisis – the recent COVID surge is fundamentally different from that of the past.Khullar 21. ~(Dhruv Khullar is a contributing writer at The New Yorker, where he writes primarily about medicine, health care, and politics. He is also a practicing physician and an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College) "India’s Crisis Marks a New Phase in the Pandemic," The New Yorker, May 13, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical dispatch/indias-crisis-marks-a-new-phase-in-the-pandemic~ TDI AND a great system if you think this is the last pandemic we’ll face." That causes Indo-Pak conflict escalation.Somos 20. ~Christy Somos is a CTVNews.ca Writer) "COVID-19 has escalated armed conflict in India, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and the Philippines, study finds," CTV News, December 17, 2020. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/covid-19-has-escalated-armed-conflict-in-india-pakistan-iraq libya-and-the-philippines-study-finds-1.5236738~ TDI AND leadership crisis, which saw an increase of attacks by Taliban groupsin May. Even a limited Indo-Pak war causes extinction.Menon 19 Prakash Menon, The nuclear cloud hanging over the human race, Nov 15, 2019, ~PhD from Madras University for his thesis "Limited War and Nuclear Deterrence in the Indo-Pak context"~ https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-nuclear-cloud-hanging-over-the-human-race/cid/1719608~~# SM AND for its incredibility and the utter stupidity of the use of nuclear weapons. Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check against this. 1AR theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance – you must be punished. No 2NR paradigm issues or RVIs because they have 6 minutes to go for them whereas I only have a 3 minute 2AR to respond so I get crushed on time skew.~2~ RVI on NC theory – you can read arguments such as T that are exclusively neg so I need them to compensate and weighing is structurally unfair since the 7-4-6-3 time skew means that the neg can just dump on weighing and the 2ar becomes impossible. This means that if either side has any offense under any framing then you default aff.~3~ All neg interps are counter interps since the aff takes an implicit stance on every issue which means you need an RVI to become offensive. You should accept all aff interps and assume I meet neg theory since the aff speaks in the dark and I have to take a stance on something, you can at least react and adapt.~4~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. AND choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. ~5~ Evolution proves our theory trueJohnson and Thayer 16 – Dominic D. P. Johnson, D.Phil., Ph.D.* and Bradley A. Thayer, Ph.D., "The evolution of offensive realism Survival under anarchy from the Pleistocene to the present," https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/56B778004187F70B8E59609BE7FEE7A4/S073093841600006Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-evolution-of-offensive-realism-div.pdf AND in which human brains and behaviors evolved. But what was that context? | 9/4/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard Weslake JH | Judge: 1AC1AC – FramingEthics must begin a priori – independent of materiality:The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism.This entails that moral facts stem from procedures while substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –~1~ Collapses – the only way to verify whether something is a moral fact is by using procedures to warrant it.~2~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~3~ Is/Ought Gap – we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. It’s impossible to derive an ought statement from descriptive facts about the world, which necessitates a priori premises.~4~ Transcendental Idealism – what we see is not what is, but our representations of reality – only a priori knowledge is a lane to truth insofar as a lack of the subject removes material constitution and abstracts sensibility as it is then unknown. Every theory of normativity presupposes this to be true because practical reason is a necessary first step to any ethical deliberation.Next is constitutive authority – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which is self-justified.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~A~ Something that is true for me must be true for anyone else i.e. 2+24 must be true for everyone which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. ~B~ Your agency isn’t unique – you can’t make exceptions for yourself. That hijacks roles of the ballots since the judge is one such practical identity, and other frameworks since implies first valuing ourselves to value other normative judgements==== ~B~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~C~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify action because we intend the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral or not. ~D~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~E~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~F~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine AdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Intellectual property protection violates the formula of autonomy – multiple warrants.Hale 18 Zachary A., 4-4-2018, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection," Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/ JG AND to the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. ~2~ States shouldn’t be forced to submit to a legal framework outside of their own anarchic conditions – that’s a violation of their own choice which is a contradiction in will.~3~ People can invent things at the same time – under IP one person is blocked from their invention which is a violation of their ability to pursue civil rights like expression, and to share in scientific advancements.~4~ IP treats humans as merely a means to an end driving for personal corporate profit which means its intrinsically a violation of the omnilateral will.~5~ Any human should not have the authority to dictate whether someone should lose their life – it’s a contradiction in conception because scientists and WTO officials willing someone to die is incoherent because life would cease to exist. When they allow for patents to be created, they will for marginalized groups to die via lack of access to medicine.AdvantageOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin AND , from trade-offs to pressurising, to make the waiver happen. Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 ~Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; "Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines," STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/~~ Justin AND to acquire the IP necessary for mRNA technologies— which is currently missing. Studies show that vaccine distribution solve COVID. Reject any ev that don’t assume vaccine nationalism.Compares two models of HARs and LARs AND study strongly supports that ethical position showing that stockpiling will undermine global health." Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 ~Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; "Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?" Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0~~#Sec4~~ Justin AND at blocking follow-on innovation by competitors should raise competition law concerns. Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin AND by nuclear threat, with cascading effects on the risk of nuclear war. Nuclear detonations cause nuclear winter and extinction, and the rainout effect is wrong – self-lofting means soot goes above the cloudsStarr 15 Steven Starr, 10-14-2015, "Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction," Federation Of American Scientists, ~Steven Starr is the director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.~, https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/, SJBE AND engage in an unwinnable academic debate as to whether any humans will survive. | 9/4/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Taft EL | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC – FramingEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Empirical uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible~D~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedom.~E~ Darkness Paradox – big bang proves our theory true – independent of material conditions there was some existence which necessitates objective truth absent material reality.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~A~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. That hijacks roles of the ballots since the judge is one such practical identity, and other frameworks since implies first valuing ourselves to value other normative judgements~B~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~C~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify action because we intend the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral or not. ~D~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~E~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~F~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine AdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Intellectual property protection violates the formula of autonomy – multiple warrants.Hale 18 Zachary A., 4-4-2018, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection," Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/ JG AND to the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. ~2~ States shouldn’t be forced to submit to a legal framework outside of their own anarchic conditions – that’s a violation of their own choice which is a contradiction in will.~3~ People can invent things at the same time – under IP one person is blocked from their invention which is a violation of their ability to pursue civil rights like expression, and to share in scientific advancements.~4~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. AdvantageOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin AND manufacturing capacities, which could also produce COVID-19 vaccines after repurposing. Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 ~Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; "Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines," STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/~~ Justin AND to acquire the IP necessary for mRNA technologies— which is currently missing. Studies show that vaccine distribution solve COVID. Reject any ev that don’t assume vaccine nationalism.Compares two models of HARs and LARs AND study strongly supports that ethical position showing that stockpiling will undermine global health." Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 ~Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; "Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?" Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0~~#Sec4~~ Justin AND at blocking follow-on innovation by competitors should raise competition law concerns. Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin AND by nuclear threat, with cascading effects on the risk of nuclear war. Nuclear detonations cause nuclear winter and extinction, and the rainout effect is wrong – self-lofting means soot goes above the cloudsStarr 15 Steven Starr, 10-14-2015, "Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction," Federation Of American Scientists, ~Steven Starr is the director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.~, https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/, SJBE AND engage in an unwinnable academic debate as to whether any humans will survive. | 9/5/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v4Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Chris Castillo 1AC – FramingEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Empirical uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible~D~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~A~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~B~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~D~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~E~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine AND is incoherent since we can’t presume -P and P are both false. Impact calc: ~A~ There’s an act/omission distinction – otherwise we’d be held infinitely culpable for every omission which kills any conception of morality.AdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Intellectual property protection violates the formula of autonomy – multiple warrants.Hale 18 Zachary A., 4-4-2018, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection," Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/ JG AND to the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. ~2~ States shouldn’t be forced to submit to a legal framework outside of their own anarchic conditions – that’s a violation of their own choice which is a contradiction in will.~3~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. ~4~ IPR is nonuniversalizable and interferes with the freedom of people who need medicine.Merges 11 ~(Robert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law) "Justifying Intellectual Property," Harvard University Press, 2011~ JL recut Lex VM AND to cut off or restrain the freedom of those who might be treated? AdvantageIndia is in crisis – the recent COVID surge is fundamentally different from that of the past.Khullar 21. ~(Dhruv Khullar is a contributing writer at The New Yorker, where he writes primarily about medicine, health care, and politics. He is also a practicing physician and an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College) "India’s Crisis Marks a New Phase in the Pandemic," The New Yorker, May 13, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical dispatch/indias-crisis-marks-a-new-phase-in-the-pandemic~ TDI AND a great system if you think this is the last pandemic we’ll face." That causes Indo-Pak conflict escalation.Somos 20. ~Christy Somos is a CTVNews.ca Writer) "COVID-19 has escalated armed conflict in India, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and the Philippines, study finds," CTV News, December 17, 2020. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/covid-19-has-escalated-armed-conflict-in-india-pakistan-iraq libya-and-the-philippines-study-finds-1.5236738~ TDI AND leadership crisis, which saw an increase of attacks by Taliban groupsin May. Even a limited Indo-Pak war causes extinction.Menon 19 Prakash Menon, The nuclear cloud hanging over the human race, Nov 15, 2019, ~PhD from Madras University for his thesis "Limited War and Nuclear Deterrence in the Indo-Pak context"~ https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-nuclear-cloud-hanging-over-the-human-race/cid/1719608~~# SM AND for its incredibility and the utter stupidity of the use of nuclear weapons. The plan bolsters the number of vaccines—-arguments about supply and logistics are empirically disproven.Nancy S. Jecker and Caesar A. Atuire 21. *Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Philosophy, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Gauteng, South Africa, "What’s yours is ours: waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines," Journal of Medical Ethics, July 6, 2021, https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2021/07/06/medethics-2021-107555.full.pdf., RJP, DebateDrills. AND will be African—continue to import 99 of its vaccine?’18 Underview1~ Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check against this. 1AR theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance – you must be punished. No 2NR paradigm issues or RVIs because they have 6 minutes to go for them whereas I only have a 3 minute 2AR to respond so I get crushed on time skew.2~ RVI and reasonability on NC theory – you can read arguments such as T that are exclusively neg so I need them to compensate and weighing is structurally unfair since the 7-4-6-3 time skew means that the neg can just dump on weighing and the 2ar becomes impossible. This means that if either side has any offense under any framing then you default aff. | 9/11/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v5Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: 2 | Opponent: James Logan AD | Judge: Jason Yang I read your paradigm please give me 30 speaks to reify screws agianst me – my favorite thing about your paradigm is that ur tech over truth1AC – FramingEthics must begin a priori:~A~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.~B~ Empirical uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same.~C~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible~D~ Constitutive Authority – practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer:~A~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE AND identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. That hijacks roles of the ballots since the judge is one such practical identity, and other frameworks since implies first valuing ourselves to value other normative judgements~B~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~C~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes. ~C~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~D~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~E~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine AdvocacyPlan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines during pandemics. CPs, Ks, and PICs affirm because they do not disprove my general thesis.Offense~1~ IPR is nonuniversalizable and interferes with the freedom of people who need medicine.Merges 11 ~(Robert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law) "Justifying Intellectual Property," Harvard University Press, 2011~ JL recut Lex VM AND to cut off or restrain the freedom of those who might be treated? ~2~ Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. ~3~ IPP unjustifiably restricts agents from setting and pursuing ends in healthcare because patents prevent people from taking part in scientific advancements in medicine – that violates freedom in multiple waysHale 18 (Zachary Hale, 4-4-2018, accessed on 8-22-2021, The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service, "Patently Unfair: The Tensions Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection - The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service", https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/04/patently-unfair/) BHHS AK AND to the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. ~4~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. AdvantageOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin AND , from trade-offs to pressurising, to make the waiver happen. Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 ~Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; "Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines," STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/~~ Justin AND to acquire the IP necessary for mRNA technologies— which is currently missing. Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 ~Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; "Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?" Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0~~#Sec4~~ Justin AND prevents generic competition and results in an extension of their market monopoly.Footnote34 Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin AND COVID-19 case numbers and increase the potential emergence of novel variants, | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v6Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: 3 | Opponent: Christopher Columbus NG | Judge: Matt Contreras ACEthics must begin apriori –~A~ Empirical uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same.~B~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be.~C~ Action theory – infinite division logically concludes from empiricism. i.e If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention unifies these actions. If we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral.~D~ Constitutive Authority – reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is Consistency with the Categorical Imperative. Prefer:~1~ Performativity – freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place.~2~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must be theoretically justified: prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That controls the internal link to other voters because a pre-req to debating is access to the activity.~3~ Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~D~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~E~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraineAdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. ~2~ An exclusive and unconditional right to property is not entailed by the categorical imperative – only conditional use is universalizable.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND universal laws suffices only to justify the permissibility of that set of rights. ~3~ That implies that intellectual property is unjust.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND thing, regardless of subsequent disuse (cf. §3.10). ~4~ Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. AdvantageOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin AND , from trade-offs to pressurising, to make the waiver happen. Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 ~Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; "Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines," STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/~~ Justin AND to acquire the IP necessary for mRNA technologies— which is currently missing. Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 ~Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; "Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?" Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0~~#Sec4~~ Justin AND at blocking follow-on innovation by competitors should raise competition law concerns. Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin AND by nuclear threat, with cascading effects on the risk of nuclear war. Studies show that vaccine distribution solve COVID. Reject any ev that don’t assume vaccine nationalism.Compares two models of HARs and LARs AND that increased vaccine-sharing resulted in reduced case numbers in LARs. " Underview~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check against this. 1AR theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance – you must be punished.~2~ Only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. AND cannot simply satisfy my desires without considering the rightness or wrongness of my actions | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT - AC - Korsgaard v7Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley TM | Judge: Victoria Yonter 1AC R6 vs DVFramingPresumption and permissibility affirm – ~a~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you’d believe me. ~b~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason. ~c~ Otherwise we’d have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. ~d~ If anything is permissible, then definitionally so is the aff since there is nothing that prevents us from doing it.Objectivity is true –~A~ Apriori Aposteriori Paradox – big bang proves our theory true – independent of material conditions there was some existence which necessitates objective truth absent material reality.~B~ Empirical Circularity – in order to see empirical reality we must first be sure our senses don’t deceive us but that’s based in materiality which proves all attempts to prove empiricism are circular.~C~ Constitutive Authority – reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding and arbitrary.~D~ Korsgaards Wager – Korsgaard is or korsgaard is not – inconsistency with perfect duties means infinite badness, that means a 1 chance of apriori ethics being true means you affirm since anything else risks infinite immorality which outweighs any chance of it being wrong.~E~ Infinite Arbitrariness – conceptions of reality are subjective, i.e my conception of a tree will be different from yours which proves only objective truth allows for unified understanding.That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.~1~ Performativity – Freedom is the key to the justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Degrees of wrongness – only korsgaard allows for weighing between morality i.e perfect and imperfect duties, util can’t explain how to weigh between competing infinite obligations like extinction. That justifies the double bind – either we can weigh and extinction first logic is incoherent or we can’t and util is incoherent.~3~ Consequences fail: ~A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance ~B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. Probability doesn’t solve because 1) Probability is improvable, as it relies on inductive knowledge, but induction from past events can’t lead to deduction of future events and 2) Probability assumes causation, we can’t assume every act was actually the cause of tangible outcomes ~C~ If you’re held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren’t binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action. ~D~ There’s no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences ~E~ You can’t aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don’t make a migraine. AdvocacyPlan Text – Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Offense~1~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. ~2~ An exclusive and unconditional right to property is not entailed by the categorical imperative – only conditional use is universalizable.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND universal laws suffices only to justify the permissibility of that set of rights. ~3~ That implies that intellectual property is unjust.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND thing, regardless of subsequent disuse (cf. §3.10). ~4~ Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. AdvantageOnly the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 ~Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled "Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions." He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); "WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity," IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721~~ Justin AND , from trade-offs to pressurising, to make the waiver happen. Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 ~Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; "Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines," STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/~~ Justin AND to acquire the IP necessary for mRNA technologies— which is currently missing. Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 ~Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; "Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?" Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0~~#Sec4~~ Justin AND at blocking follow-on innovation by competitors should raise competition law concerns. Corona escalates security threats that cause extinction – cooperation thesis is wrong.Recna 21 ~Research Center for Nuclear Weapon Abolition; Nagasaki, Japan; "Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon Risks: The Nagasaki 75th Anniversary pandemic-nuclear nexus scenarios final report," Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament; 5/28/21; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2021.1890867~~ Justin AND by nuclear threat, with cascading effects on the risk of nuclear war. Studies show that vaccine distribution solve COVID. Reject any ev that don’t assume vaccine nationalism.Compares two models of HARs and LARs AND that increased vaccine-sharing resulted in reduced case numbers in LARs. " Underview~1~ Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check against this. Aff theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance – you must be punished, | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/11/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/11/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/20/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/4/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/4/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/5/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
|