| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JW Patterson | 1 | Broken Arrow TN | Ausha Curry |
|
|
| |
| JW Patterson | 3 | Harvard-Westlake IC | Lawson Hudson |
|
|
| |
| JW Patterson | 6 | Isidore Newman EE | Nobra, Amanda |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Valley RT | Allison Aldridge |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 6 | Harison JC | Sophia Ploucha |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | McDowell JJ | Kate Phillipo |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| JW Patterson | 1 | Opponent: Broken Arrow TN | Judge: Ausha Curry ac - Cosmopolitanism |
| JW Patterson | 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake IC | Judge: Lawson Hudson AC - Covid |
| JW Patterson | 6 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Nobra, Amanda 1ac stock |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Allison Aldridge 1ac kant |
| Yale | 6 | Opponent: Harison JC | Judge: Sophia Ploucha AC - Racial Cap |
| Yale | 3 | Opponent: McDowell JJ | Judge: Kate Phillipo 1ac - rawls pol equality |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 - Disclosure - NewTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Allison Aldridge
2. Discourages tricks – plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot aff’s. If the aff isn’t inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, the case should lose. The neg is entitled to some research time to make sure the AFF is inherent, topical, and controversial. Otherwise bad AFF’s can win on purely surprise factor, which is a bad model b/c it encourages finding the most fringe surprising case possible instead of a well researched and defensible aff. Vote on substantive engagement: otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory. It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics. Drop the debater on new affs: Their lack of disclosure makes substance irreparable b/c our entire argument is that we did not have a basis to engage the aff to begin with. Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation. | 9/18/21 |
1 - No 1AR theoryTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Allison Aldridge
| 9/18/21 |
2 - UtilTournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: McDowell JJ | Judge: Kate Phillipo 1The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer it:~2~ Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework-threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework.~3~ Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they're our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actionsMoen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. ~5~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. Any standard is an interpretation of the words of the resolution-thus framework is functionally a topicality argument about how to define the terms of the resolution. My framework interprets ought as maximizing happiness. Prefer this definition:~A~ Ground: Both debaters are guaranteed access to ground to engage under util – ie Aff gets plans and advantages, while Neg gets disads and counterplans. Additionally, anything can function as a util impact as long as an external benefit is articulated, so all your offense applies. Other frameworks deny 1 side the ability to engage the other on both the impact and link level. Their framework is exclusive – setcol literature is aff-biased and kills engagement which link turns their discourse offense.~6~ Extinction outweighsPummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT | 10/9/21 |
2 - Util v2Tournament: JW Patterson | Round: 1 | Opponent: Broken Arrow TN | Judge: Ausha Curry The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer it:~1~ Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework-threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework.~2~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate.~A~ Ground: Both debaters are guaranteed access to ground to engage under util – ie Aff gets plans and advantages, while Neg gets disads and counterplans. Additionally, anything can function as a util impact as long as an external benefit is articulated, so all your offense applies. Other frameworks deny 1 side the ability to engage the other on both the impact and link level. Their framework is exclusive – setcol literature is aff-biased and kills engagement which link turns their discourse offense.~3~ Extinction outweighsPummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT ~4~ Util is a prereq to cosmopolitanism – to achieve the community we must prevent death and extinction – the best measure to do that is through util | 10/9/21 |
SO - Abolish WTO CPTournament: JW Patterson | Round: 6 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Nobra, Amanda Primacy causes endless war, terror, authoritarianism, prolif, and Russia-China aggression. While there has been significant empirical work on issue linkage in other areas (e.g., Davis 2004; Long and Leeds 2006; Poast 2012, 2013), there is relatively little work on the pacifying effect of issue linkage (but see Wiegand 2009). One reason might be that coding is quite demanding, and that, unlike formal alliances or trade deals, international agreements over conflict are rarely well documented.1 Nonetheless, the theoretical literature suggests that there should be a negative relationship between the ability to link issues together and the likelihood of dyadic conflict. We provide an indirect test of this hypothesis below. The GATT and the WTO In the wake of the devastation of two world wars, American and European governments looked for ways to bring about peace and prosperity in the international system. Amid fears that the destabilization of the Great Depression had been precipitated by protectionist trade policies, leaders sought to establish an institution that could facilitate trade liberalization and end trade wars. To 1This may be why Wiegand’s study—which is qualitative in nature—is one of the few that attempts to examine issue linkage directly. 5 this end, in 1947, they created the GATT. The GATT was a multilateral agreement between states (23, initially, but more than 100 by the time it was subsumed by the WTO) to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers substantially and to eliminate preferential treatment among signatories. The institution provided states with a set of agreed-upon rules, as well as a forum for negotiation, facilitating cooperation among members. When one member state believed that another was in violation of the agreement, it could invoke provisions in Articles XXII and XXIII of the agreement that called for consultation and dispute settlement. While this allowed parties to form an investigative panel to assess and resolve the dispute, Zangl (2008) points out three major obstacles to settlement: panel composition was determined by the disputants (Jackson 1997); panel reports were the result of political negotiation, rather than legal decisions (Zangl 2008); and both empanelment (Hudec 1993) and sanctions (Rosendorff 2005) required unanimous approval, meaning that the defendant ultimately held veto power. Such a system is ultimately predicated on compromise and the negotiation of self-enforcing agreements. Under GATT, aggrieved parties had no recourse but to persuade violators to alter their behavior. With the establishment of the WTO, the aforementioned problems—along with a host of other issues—were resolved. The dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) under the WTO is highly legalized, with independent judicial bodies that are charged with rendering verdicts and authorizing sanctions (Goldstein and Martin 2000; Rosendorff 2005). Under the present system, complainants have significantly increased power, and they are no longer restricted to negotiating in order to convince defendants to comply with the rules.2 For this reason, it should be unsurprising that compliance has generally increased following the judicialization of the institution (Jackson 1997; Zangl 2008). The move from the GATT framework to the WTO undoubtedly deepened the institutionalization of the trade agreement, binding its member states more tightly. Kant’s (2007 1795) idea of a “federation of free states” dealt primarily with the imposition of law and order upon the anarchic international system. By increasing the institution’s degree of legalization, the trade organization 2Of course, negotiation still occurs within the WTO DSM. However, disputants do so in the shadow of the panel, significantly increasing the complainant’s bargaining leverage (Poletti, De Bièvre and Chatagnier 2015). 6 brought itself closer to the Kantian ideal.3 Indeed, while the GATT satisfies only the second and fourth roles of an IGO listed above (to some extent), the WTO quite clearly fulfills all four. From this perspective, we would expect the more heavily-institutionalized WTO to reduce conflict among member states to a greater degree than its predecessor. Hypothesis 1. The establishment of the WTO reduced the instances of militarized conflict among member states. At the same time, the increase in the organization’s power has limited the actions of the constituent actors. WTO members are required to behave in a non-discriminatory manner and to abide by agreed-upon standards. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to sanctions. While many of these behaviors were prohibited under the GATT as well, the much more credible threat of punishment likely reduces a state’s economic toolkit to a greater degree. If the U.S. believes, for example, that Chinese currency manipulation is adversely affecting trade, it cannot retaliate with tariffs or import quotas without a favorable ruling from the DSM. To do otherwise would be to invite sanctions against itself. Moreover, states are stripped of a range of options that could “sweeten the deal” in negotiations. A state that attempted to offer favorable terms of trade in exchange for concessions on a different dimension would be unable to do so without offering the same terms to all other trading partners; a state that offered to rein in a trade violation would have no leverage as the opponent could appeal to the DSM to have the trade-distorting measure removed. Thus, states are left with fewer options for issue-linkage in bargaining scenarios, which suggests an opposing hypothesis. International trade has long been thought to facilitate peace among nations (Kant 1795 1970). A voluntary exchange of goods that leaves both parties better off inherently raises the value of each side to the other, increasing the cost of conflict. The belief that economic interaction can ignite a positive dynamic of cooperation and reduce conflictual behavior is so intuitive and widespread that some political pundits have even heralded free trade as the path to world peace (see, e.g., Griswold 1998; Boudreaux 2006).The conventional wisdom within the international relations literature (e.g., Oneal and Russett 1997; Gartzke, Li, and Boehmer 2003; Polachek and Xiang 2010) reinforces these claims, having found consistent empirical (and theoretical) links between trade and peace. At the same time, however, there is certainly evidence that trade can exacerbate rivalry and conflict between states. Throughout history, states have fought their competitors for advantage (i.e., access to inputs and markets) in the global marketplace. For instance, in his authoritative account of the Anglo-German rivalry before World War I, Kennedy (1980, 464) concludes that “the most profound cause of the conflict, surely, was economic”. More specifically, the cause was “the detectable increase in Anglo-German trade rivalry since Bismarck’s time as the latter country steadily became more competitive.” Moreover, while modern empirical international relations research has largely come down on the side of the neoliberals, it has not been monolithic. Indeed, numerous studies by Barbieri (1996, 2002) have demonstrated that increased trade actually has the potential to aggravate tensions between states. These inconsistencies in both the historical and analytical records raise questions about the simplicity of the link between trade and conflict. Additionally, the vast majority of previous work considers only the bilateral effects of trade, neglecting the way in which trade between two actors can affect a third. We remedy this oversight by analyzing the effects of trade competition, arguing that the tension produced by export competition can be an important source of international conflict. More specifically, we highlight that economic actors who face foreign competition have an incentive to use military power to gain an advantage in international markets. These domestic actors can use their economic power to influence their nation’s political elites and increase the likelihood that economic conflict erupts into war. We support this theoretical argument with several well-established historical cases including the seventeenth-century Dutch-English commercial rivalry, the pre-World War I Anglo-German rivalry, and the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Our argument suggests that, although trade can have a pacifying direct effect at the dyadic level, it also has strong indirect effects, which can be conflict aggravating. We test this argument using commodity-level trade data from 1962 to 2000. We measure each country pair’s portfolio similarity along nearly 1,300 commodity categories and test the effect of this variable on several indicators of international conflict. Our results strongly support our claim that countries that produce and export similar goods are significantly more likely to fight, even taking into account their bilateral trade. These findings are robust to several checks on model specification as well as alternative explanations. We also show that our findings are not driven by oil or other strategic resources and that they hold for both raw and manufactured goods. In light of these results, we are confident that we have identified a significant and practically important cause of war. | 10/10/21 |
SO - EmechTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Allison Aldridge
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.
| 9/18/21 |
SO - Innovation DATournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: McDowell JJ | Judge: Kate Phillipo Pharma profits are up from COVID vaccines in particular, patent waivers threaten thisBuchholz 5-17-21 Strong IP protection spurs innovation by encouraging risk-taking and incentivizing knowledge sharing — prefer statistical analysis of multiple studiesEzell and Cory 19 ~Stephen Ezell, vice president and global innovation policy @ ITIF, BS Georgetown School of Foreign Service. Nigel Cory, associate director covering trade policy @ ITIF, MA public policy @ Georgetown. "The Way Forward for Intellectual Property Internationally," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-25-2019, accessed 8-25-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally~~ HWIC Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to prevent future pandemics and bioterrorMarjanovic and Feijao 20 ~Sonja Marjanovic Ph.D., Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Carolina Feijao, Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of Cambridge; M.Sc. in quantitative biology, Imperial College London; B.Sc. in biology, University of Lisbon. "How to Best Enable Pharma Innovation Beyond the COVID-19 Crisis," RAND Corporation, 05-2020, accessed 8-8-2021, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA407-1.html~~ HWIC That causes extinction, which outweighs.Millett and Snyder-Beattie '17. Millett, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford; and Snyder-Beattie, M.S., Director of Research, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. 08-01-2017. "Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity," Health Security, 15(4), PubMed | 10/9/21 |
SO - Orphan Drug CPTournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: McDowell JJ | Judge: Kate Phillipo Counterplan Text - Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought toeliminate intellectual property protections for medicines except for orphan drugs.prioritize distribution of orphan drugs to the Global South.Orphan drug legislation is specifically key to stimulate research into rare diseasesHorgan et. al 20 D, Moss B, Boccia S, Genuardi M, Gajewski M, Capurso G, Fenaux P, Gulbis B, Pellegrini M, Mañú Pereira M, M, Gutiérrez Valle V, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, Kent A, Cattaneo I, Jagielska B, Belina I, Tumiene B, Ward A, Papaluca M: Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU's Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed? Biomed Hub 2020;5:1-11. doi: 10.1159/000509272 https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/509272~~# sid Orphan diseases require time intensive care and affect millions.Lancet 19 ~Lancet, 2-1-2019, accessed on 9-6-2021, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, "Spotlight on rare diseases", https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(19)30006-3/fulltext~~//sid Rare diseases disproportionately affect people of colorRDDC, No Date (RDDC, No Date, accessed on 9-6-2021, Rare Disease Diversity Coalition, "Charting thePath Forwardfor Equity inRare Diseases", https://3hqwxl1mqiah5r73r2q7zll1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/RDDC_Path_Forward_Final.pdf)//sid | 10/9/21 |
SO - PROC CPTournament: JW Patterson | Round: 1 | Opponent: Broken Arrow TN | Judge: Ausha Curry Text: The People's Republic of China should offer Chinese developed vaccines and medical technology related to COVID-19 to the world for free.The CP massively ramps up Chinese "vaccine diplomacy" which solves the caseJuecheng and Yuwei 8-13-21 Successful vaccine diplomacy is key to overall Chinese Soft PowerHuang, PhD, 3-11-21 Chinese leadership solves extinction.Shen Yamei 18, Deputy Director and Associate Research Fellow of Department for American Studies, China Institute of International Studies, 1-9-2018, "Probing into the "Chinese Solution" for the Transformation of Global Governance," CAIFC, http://www.caifc.org.cn/en/content.aspx?id=4491 | 10/9/21 |
SO - T - ReduceTournament: JW Patterson | Round: 1 | Opponent: Broken Arrow TN | Judge: Ausha Curry 1~ Interpretation – Reduce means to cancel.Black's Law 90 Black's Law Dictionary 2ND ED. "Reduce" https://dictionary.thelaw.com/reduce/ Elmer That means the Aff has to annul IP protections in their entirety, they can't just modify it.2~ Violation – They "delay enforcement" which is a modification, not a complete annulment3~ Standards –a~ Neg Ground – Core Neg Generics like Innovation and Biotech Heg are predicated on scope of effect – minor modifications in how long a patent lasts for or what it effects allows the 1AR to minimize our links to zero which destroys being Neg on a Topic w/ very little Generic Ground.b~ Limits – Allowing Affs to make patent modifications explodes Aff ground by three-fold because for all four intellectual property protections for every medicine MULTIPLIED by different time modifications, different scope modifications which makes predictable preparation and in-depth clash impossible.3Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but patent waivers set 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 Climate change destroys the world.Specktor 19 ~Brandon writes about the science of everyday life for Live Science, and previously for Reader's Digest magazine, where he served as an editor for five years~ 6-4-2019, "Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims," livescience, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-2050.html Justin | 10/9/21 |
SO - T Covid MedicinesTournament: JW Patterson | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake IC | Judge: Lawson Hudson ===="medicines" treat or cure, whereas vaccines prevent – o/w on specificity since it's about the COVID vaccine==== Violation – their advantage area is about vaccines which means either a. they solve nothing and vote neg on presumption because vaccines aren't "COVID-19 medicines" or b. they violateNegate –1~ Limits – expanding the topic to preventative treatment or medical interventions allows anything from surgery to mosquito repellent to prevent malaria. Destroys core generics like innovation which are exclusive to disease curing – core of the topic is about proprietary information.Voters:Drop the debater – they have a 7-6 rebuttal advantage and the 2ar to make args I can't respond to,Use competing interps reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention since we don't know your bs meter,No RVIs –illogical – you shouldn't win for being fair – it's a litmus test for engaging in substance,Comes first – indicts the 1ac – any potential neg abuse was caused by aff abuse | 10/9/21 |
SO - TTTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Valley RT | Judge: Allison Aldridge anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it. Negate – 8 Good Samaritan Paradox -- affirming negates because in order to say you want to fix x problem, that assumes x problem exists in the first place, thus eliminating nukes presupposes nukes exist which means negation is a prior question 10 The holographic principle is the most reasonable conclusion Permissibility Negates B you believe statements are false until proven true which is why you don’t believe in things like simulations and demons Reject 1ar Theory and independent voting issues as reasons to reject the team, Evaluate the debate after the 1NC and before the 1ar to limit judge intervention and so we can all do our homework. Evaluating after the 1nc means after my speech you look at your flow and extend all of my arguments because there’s no response so you assume they’re true and vote on the dropped truth testing + definitions bc they prove the aff is incoherent or on log con bc the aff wont happen or theory because it means they were abusive and you need to drop the debater | 9/18/21 |
SO - WTO DATournament: Yale | Round: 3 | Opponent: McDowell JJ | Judge: Kate Phillipo COVID vaccine debate will kill the WTO, but the aff reverses that instability.Meyer 6-18-21 (David, Senior Writer, https://fortune.com/2021/06/18/wto-covid-vaccines-patents-waiver-south-africa-trips/) The 1AC evidence isolates that each of the problems they mention aren't solely caused by IP, but rather expressions of the overarching system of capitalism – thus collapsing the whole system is key.WTO collapse solves extinctionHilary 15 John Hilary 2015 "Want to know how to really tackle climate change? Pull the plug on the World Trade Organisation" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/want-to-know-how-to-really-tackle-climate-change-pull-the-plug-on-the-world-trade-organisation-a6774391.html (Executive Director, War on Want)Elmer | 10/9/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/9/21 | sagha22@brophybroncosorg |
| |
10/9/21 | sagha22@brophybroncosorg |
| |
9/18/21 | sagha22@brophybroncosorg |
| |
10/8/21 | sagha22@brophybroncosorg |
| |
10/9/21 | sagha22@brophybroncosorg |
|