Dulles Nataraja Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 1 | Harker RM | Claudia Ribera |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 5 | Memorial SC | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Lake Highland Prep AB | Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 1 | Dr Phillips AD | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 4 | Lexington JB | Joey Georges |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Harrison MB | Alexander Torrez |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Garland LY | Castillo, Ciocca, Wu |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Strake KS | Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Marlborough TZ | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 3 | Denton Guyer SB | Javier Navarette |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Greenhill EN | Dylan Liu |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 2 | Plano East AW | Ben Erdmann |
|
|
| |
| Longhorn Classic | 3 | Winston Churchill AH | Jugal Amodwala |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Honor AP | Ronak Ahuja |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Diamond Bar NC | Jason Lan |
|
|
| |
| h | Semis | k | y |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Glenbrooks | 1 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1ac- Egypt |
| Glenbrooks | 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1ac- kant |
| Glenbrooks | 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Andrew Qin 1ac- alienation |
| Grapevine | 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1ac- kant |
| Grapevine | 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Joey Georges 1ac- 21 Savage Pan-Africanism |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1ac- Whole res |
| Grapevine | Doubles | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Castillo, Ciocca, Wu 1ac- antiblackness |
| Heart of Texas | Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 1ac- pandemics |
| Heart of Texas | 5 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1ac- MSF |
| Heart of Texas | 3 | Opponent: Denton Guyer SB | Judge: Javier Navarette 1ac- Covid |
| Heart of Texas | 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 1ac- stock |
| Longhorn Classic | 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann 1ac- china |
| Longhorn Classic | 3 | Opponent: Winston Churchill AH | Judge: Jugal Amodwala 1ac- whole res |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja 1ac- Rhetorical Decolonization |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 1ac- evergreen |
| h | Semis | Opponent: k | Judge: y weefwsdrfv |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0-ContactTournament: h | Round: Semis | Opponent: k | Judge: y 1-Generics | 9/4/21 |
1-NC-UtilTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1 – Pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses – robust neuroscience.Blum et al. 18 Kenneth Blum, 1Department of Psychiatry, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton VA Medical Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA 5Department of Precision Medicine, Geneus Health LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA 6Department of Addiction Research and Therapy, Nupathways Inc., Innsbrook, MO, USA 7Department of Clinical Neurology, Path Foundation, New York, NY, USA 8Division of Neuroscience-Based Addiction Therapy, The Shores Treatment and Recovery Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA 9Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 10Division of Addiction Research, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC. North Kingston, RI, USA 11Victory Nutrition International, Lederach, PA., USA 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA, Marjorie Gondré-Lewis, 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA 13Departments of Anatomy and Psychiatry, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC US, Bruce Steinberg, 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA, Igor Elman, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, David Baron, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Edward J Modestino, 14Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA, Rajendra D Badgaiyan, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, Mark S Gold 16Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, "Our evolved unique pleasure circuit makes humans different from apes: Reconsideration of data derived from animal studies", U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 February 2018, accessed: 19 August 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446569/, R.S. 2. Extinction first –A – Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible which proves moral uncertaintyB – Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessitiesC – Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalD - Even if life is bad now, a fiery nuclear inferno death flips the uniq question for their impactsE - Consent – they don't get to make a decision for billions who find value in life | 10/16/21 |
1-ROB-Truth TestingTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 21. Logic: Debate is fundamentally a game with rules, which requires the better competitor to win. Every other ROB is just a reason why there are other ways to play the game but are not consistent enough with the purpose of the game to vote on, just like you don't win a basketball game for shooting the most 3s. | 9/11/21 |
1-ROB-Truth Testing v2Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja The ROB is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.1. Fiat is illusory: Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn't change anything and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me. Answering this triggers constitutivism since the win is necessary for your scholarship which means rules inside of the game matter. | 9/4/21 |
1-ROB-Truth testing v3Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw
3. Isomorphism: ROBs that aren't phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it's solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn't a closest estimate. 6. Constitutivism: the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true b) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game. | 9/11/21 |
1-Theory-Aff Flex BadTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann | 12/4/21 |
1-Theory-DisclosureTournament: Grapevine | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Castillo, Ciocca, Wu Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021/2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don't1~ Evidence Ethics —- disclosure deters mis-cutting, power-tagging, abuse of brackets and ellipses, and plagiarism. Independent reason to vote you down because it promotes better norms about academic engagement—-debate is an academic environment and must ensure that we become fair scholars. Even if you don't lose on fairness in the round, you will lose in college if you violate academic ethics which establish a crucial real-world norm and outweighs any in-round impact. Also, if you aren't honest, we don't know what else you're lying about which means we don't know if your arguments are actually true since they can be misrepresented.2~ Quality engagement- Disclosure allows for in-depth preparation before the round and the tournament which allows debaters to effectively write case negs and arguments. Their model forecloses the chance to test their aff against a well-prepared opponent, diminishing the only unique benefits to debate. Only our interpretation allows for intricate debate and advocacy refinement through the process of in depth argumentation on the 1ac which makes debates better in the long term. Engagement outweighs and is a voter-all of the benefits of their role of the ballot relies on deliberation and rigorous contestation, but they have precluded our ability to engage in it which makes it a one sided monologue and link turns their arguments because it prevents the best possible conclusion. AND 4~ Small school inclusion – disclosure ensures equity of prepping resources.Bietz 10 Mike (Coach for Harvard-Westlake) "The Case for Public Case Disclosure." NFL Rostrum, Vol. 84, Issue 9. May 2010. https://nationalforensicleague.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/publications/05-201020Complete20Rostrum.pdf JW
Framing: You can't coopt any of the reasons why procedurals are bad in the context of the affirmative since I don't constrain your ability to read it– the contention is that this aff should've been read, just disclosed.Fairness above the K1~ Fairness is a prior question to effective dialogue – If fairness is bad writ large vote neg regardless of the flow because it's unfair2~ If the judge doesn't enforce fairness, none of your scholarship would pass since it would give them the unfair jurisdiction to reject it and vote you down. Even if they don't, rejecting fairness is a practice that would justify a bad norm, which all your arguments are predicated on anyways.3~ We can't compare or interact to find the best solution to oppression if the unfair nature of your arguments prevents me from strategizing. Fairness is an integral part of your solvency.4~ Unfair practices would make kids quit debate if they can't check it which means less people to spread your message to so the shell is a prior question.Every reason fairness is a voter is a reason you can't read substantive take-outs to the shell since it precludes your evaluation of them.Disclosure above the K1~ Out of round practices constrain what can be read in round2~ Lexically prior, they might indite the neg but I indite their months old practicesEdu- funded ny schoolsDTD- dta illogical, time skewNo RVI's or perf cons- illogical, baiting, if theory is bad and you vote on a turn to theory you are voting on theoryCI- intervention, race to bottom, collapses, yours vs bestTheory isn't violent – A~ I don't have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. Theory doesn't ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time. B~ Exclusion is inevitable – every role of the ballot excludes some arguments and even saying Theory bad excludes it – that means we should delineate ground along reciprocal lines, not abandon division altogether. Reading Theory isn't psychic violence – that was above, but especially if we're not going for it since reading Theory can be used to prevent aff shiftiness and make substance a viable option.No silencing DA - Theory is just like a disad or critique we've said a certain practice the aff took was bad and it would've been better had they done it differently not that they are bad debaters – just like the cap k says the aff engaged in some practice that reinforced capitalism and it would've been better if they had emphasized Marxism – impositions in some form are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder and needs link arguments – every disad link says the aff did something wrong and theres an implicit version of the aff that wouldn't have linkedTheory before the K – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can't say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn't given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn't answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don't know if they're valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Reject aff pre empts – not clearly delineated, impossible to know implications | 10/16/21 |
1-Theory-May not justify 1ar theory dtd ci and highest layer of the roundTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1A~ Interpretation: the aff may not say 1ar theory is legit, drop the debater, competing interps, and highest layer.B~ Violation: the underview spike.C~ Standards:~1~ Strat skew—all of these paradigm issues in conjunction make it impossible for the neg to win because reading a frivolous 1AR shell with no counter-interp offense wins the round on the spot. Their interp incentivizes the aff to read a 1AR shell with marginal offense because it is a no-risk issue sufficient to win them the round that the neg can't generate offense against under competing interps. Aff theory first makes it the highest layer, so winning it wins the round. | 11/21/21 |
1-Theory-ROTB SpecTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Honor AP | Judge: Ronak Ahuja 1A. Interpretation: If the affirmative differs from the conventional Truth Testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC where they clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and what constitutes that offense with implications on how to weighMultiple ways the AC violates:C. Standards:Engagement –If I don't know how the role of the ballot functions, its impossible for me to engage the aff, since knowing what counts as offense for me is a prerequisite to being able to make meaningful arguments that clash with yours. Knowing what a legitimate advocacy is ensures that I read something that is relevant to your method, and knowing how to weigh gives us a standard for what is relevant, This is true of role of the ballots since there is no norm on what "performative engagement" is in the same way there is for what counts as util offense. Few impacts:a) Education – when two ships pass in the night we don't learn anything, education is derived from analyzing and comparing each other's arguments. This also guts novice inclusion because now they can never learn arguments in round.b) Link turns your role of the ballot – your impacts are premised on actually having a debate and engaging with issues of oppression. Almost impossible to engage roles of the ballot are uniquely bad since no one will take seriously a position that can't be clashed with, so you harm any progress your position can create.c) Strategy Skew – You make formulating a strategy impossible since I don't know what links to your evaluative mechanism. My interp means we know what a legitimate neg advocacy is, otherwise you can make up reasons mine doesn't link to the role of the ballot in the next speech, and by specing a weighing mechanism I can know to make the most relevant arguments so you can't arbitrarily preclude them in the next speech.Framing: You can't use your ROB to exclude my shell. My shell allows you to read your role of the ballot, it just functionally constrains how you can do that. Additionally, as long as I win comparative offense to my interp it precludes on a methodological level -my method is your ROTB with specification, your is just the ROTB, so if the former is better it's a reason to vote for me even if method debates in general preclude theory. Also, if they go for the Aff first that proves the abuse of my shell since they should have specified in the AC.Voters: Fairness/Edu/DTD/CI/No RVI | 9/4/21 |
1-Theory-Spikes on topTournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dr Phillips AD | Judge: Andrew Shaw
| 9/11/21 |
1-Theory-Standard Text SpecTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough TZ | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1Interpretation: Affirmatives must specify and separately delineate a standard text in the 1AC.Violation: they didn'tStandards1~ Shiftiness- They can shift out of my turns based on whatever theory of the good they operate under due to the nature of a vague standard. Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of ~Structural Violence~ coming first and I wouldn't know until the 1AR which gives them access to multiple contingent standards.2~ Real World- Philosophers need to be as specific as possible when delineating their theory since there are so many nuances and contextual applications of philosophy that require us to understand the core differences within the philosophy.This spec shell isn't regressive- it literally determines what framework the affirmative defends and how to link offense back to it | 10/19/21 |
ND-K-BaudrillardTournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Ben Erdmann 2Strikes act as revolutionary behavior that reify systems of domination – a cruel game where the Revolutionary sees itself as mobilized when it is unknowingly restrained into reproducing the system.Baudrillard 81 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Simulacra and Simulation, 1981pesh-anika- The proliferation of signs has left strikes meaningless; strikes are engaging in orchestrated social and political relations that operate for contemporary capitalism, rendering them futileBaudrillard 76 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, cultural theorist, and philosopher~, Symbolic Exchange and Death, 1976pesh-anika We lose all hope of reality through the excess of unverifiable information caused by the rapid multiplication of signs – removing pieces doesn't solve.Gao 16, Liyan Gao. "Ideological cynicism in the modern information age with Sloterdijk and Žižek." Thus, the alt is to embrace radical nihilism. Capitalism engages in unending reproduction; thus we need to drain of propped up ideals. A society that maintains capitalist production is contingent upon subjects that are forced to labor – so we let the system collapse in on itself.Baudrillard 4 ~Jean; Simulacra and Simulation; Sociologist/Philosopher, cool dude; 1981; University of Michigan Press; LCA-BP~ The world fundamentally rests on the logic of (in)difference, in which origins are simultaneously unlocatable and everywhere all at once. The proliferation of communication under late stage capitalism washes up and crashes on the rocks of truth and falsity, eroding meaning at its shores. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best ruptures hyperreality.Baudrillard 1 ~Jean Baudrillard, sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorist, true sweetheart, "Fatal Strategies"; LCA-BP~ *edited for lang | 12/4/21 |
ND-K-WeheliyeTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same Vishnu that I was 10 years ago, which proves personal evolution.Affect is constitutive: it is the capacity to experience and to be experienced. I am experiencing my laptop, my opponent, just as much as you are experiencing me. There is no way any person or thing can escape affection.Fluidity determines the subject: because affect and instability ensure that subjects always change, the only intrinsic feature of the subject is that everything remains in flux. Emphasis on particular aspects of subjectivity only drives division in the proletariat.1AC's legal incorporation of subjects through state engagement ensures an outside of personhood – legal incorporation sustains hierarchies as it determines who is or isn't a legitimate person – diving people into different categories of human, subhuman, and non-human.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The legal recognition of a right to strike recreates the conditions of juridical humanity where the state dictates who is or isn't worthy of the state's generosity through receiving rights. This forced assimilation perpetuates neocolonial mindsets and terminates in racialized violence and genocide.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Focusing on legal integration reinforces the western Man by forcing groups the beg for empathy and degrade themselves for simple rights. It encourages infighting – a bourgeois strategy that forces oppression olympics while affirming political violence.Weheliye 3 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ By emphasizing the distinctions between humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans, whiteness becomes viewed as Truth and the bar at which everyone is compared in the color line. The color line emphasizes phenotypical distinctions as the standard for which bodies enter spaces of liminality.Wynter 03 ~Sylvia Wynter, Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument. The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 2003. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 Dulles VN~ *bracketed for clarity* The alternative is habeas viscus. We reconfigure our view of the human to be framed by flesh instead of the legal body to focus on affective bonds. By synthesizing our experiences and identities, we can embrace liminality to better strategize and dismantle systems of oppression while emphasizing collective action and collaboration.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Subjects are gridded against the legal system to be surveilled by the state, which mandates a precondition to rights: are you oppressed enough to deserve equality? Even when the state affirms the rights of white, cis, wealthy gay men, it oppresses gender nonconforming, indigenous, queers. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct western Man.Weheliye 5 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ | 11/20/21 |
ND-K-Weheliye v2Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1NC – K (CONDO)The subject is fundamentally unstable: being is in flux due to things such as time, I am not the same Vishnu that I was 10 years ago, which proves personal evolution.Affect is constitutive: it is the capacity to experience and to be experienced. I am experiencing my laptop, my opponent, just as much as you are experiencing me. There is no way any person or thing can escape affection.Fluidity determines the subject: because affect and instability ensure that subjects always change, the only intrinsic feature of the subject is that everything remains in flux. Emphasis on particular aspects of subjectivity only drives division in the proletariat.1AC's legal incorporation of subjects through state engagement ensures an outside of personhood – legal incorporation sustains hierarchies as it determines who is or isn't a legitimate person – diving people into different categories of human, subhuman, and non-human.Weheliye 1 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ The legal recognition of a right to strike recreates the conditions of juridical humanity where the state dictates who is or isn't worthy of the state's generosity through receiving rights. This forced assimilation perpetuates neocolonial mindsets and terminates in racialized violence and genocide.Weheliye 2 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ By emphasizing the distinctions between humans, not-quite humans, and non-humans, whiteness becomes viewed as Truth and the bar at which everyone is compared in the color line. The color line emphasizes phenotypical distinctions as the standard for which bodies enter spaces of liminality.Wynter 03 ~Sylvia Wynter, Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument. The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 2003. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 Dulles VN~ *bracketed for clarity* The alternative is habeas viscus. We reconfigure our view of the human to be framed by flesh instead of the legal body to focus on affective bonds. By synthesizing our experiences and identities, we can embrace liminality to better strategize and dismantle systems of oppression while emphasizing collective action and collaboration.Weheliye 4 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ Subjects are gridded against the legal system to be surveilled by the state, which mandates a precondition to rights: are you oppressed enough to deserve equality? Even when the state affirms the rights of white, cis, wealthy gay men, it oppresses gender nonconforming, indigenous, queers. Thus, the role of the ballot is to deconstruct western Man.Weheliye 5 ~Alexander Weheliye, Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University, 2014, "Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human" Dulles VN~ | 11/21/21 |
ND-NC-KantTournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Andrew Qin 1FrameworkThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations2~ 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.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.And, reason must be universal –~A~ a reason for one agent is a reason for another agent. I can't say 2+24 is true for me but not for you – that's incoherent.==== ~B~ 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, key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's system of equal and outer freedom. 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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.~3~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of themContention1~Strikes fail to fulfill dutyFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG 2~ Uses others as a mere means to an endFourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG 3~ Kantianism requires negative responsibility, as anything is legitimate until there is a reason not to allow it. For example, I don't have to justify why I should be able to toss a pen, I can just do it. This makes prohibiting inaction impossible because it is structurally impossible to be held culpable for omissions under Kant since agents would always be categorically condemned in the instance of tradeoffs. That means even if strikes are good in abstract, governments recognizing them is a positive responsibility which isn't offense under Kant.4~ The process of strike uses patients or beneficiaries of work as a means to an endHoward 20 ~Danielle Howard Mar 2020, "What Should Physicians Consider Prior to Unionizing?," Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-should-physicians-consider-prior-unionizing/2020-03 LEX JB~ AND 5~ Going on strike isn't universalizable – a) if everyone leaves work then there will be no concept of a job b) everyone means the employer even leaves which is a contradiction in contraception7~Contracts – employers and employees have contracts which do not include / do not grant workers to strike. Granting workers to strike is a violation of those companies' contracts, which ow under my fwk since it's a breaking of a contract., that negates under kant b/c breaking a contract is lying which is non universalizable9~The right to strike implies a right to coercion which is a contradiction in conception.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying 11~Prohibiting coercion doesn't solve- It makes the right to strike conditional. | 11/21/21 |
SO-CP-WHOTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez WHO says yes – it supports increasing the availability of generics and limiting TRIPS Consultation displays strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states which are key to WTO legitimacy WHO is critical to disease prevention – it is the only international institution that can disperse information, standardize global public health, and facilitate public-private cooperation | 10/16/21 |
SO-DA-Climate PatentsTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 2Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid Climate Patents are critical to solving Warming – only way to stimulate Renewable Energy Technology Investment.Aberdeen 20 Arielle Aberdeen October 2020 "Patents to climate rescue: how intellectual property rights are fundamental to the development of renewable energy" https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/4516/0399/1622/Intellectual_Property_and_Renewable_Energy.pdf (Caribbean Attorney-at-Law with extensive experience in legal research and writing.)Elmer Warming causes ExtinctionKareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer | 10/19/21 |
SO-DA-InfrastructureTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 3Biden's infrastructure bill will pass through reconciliation but absolute Dem Unity is key.Turns Structural Violence Pharma backlashes to the Plan – they're aggressive lobbyists and will do anything to preserve patent rights.Turns Case – Waters down the Plan due to lobbying They choose Infrastructure as backlash – they bill costs Pharma millions – lobbyists can derail the Agenda.Brennan 8-2 Zachary Brennan 8-2-2021 "How the biopharma industry is helping to pay for the bipartisan infrastructure bill" https://endpts.com/how-the-biopharma-industry-is-helping-to-pay-for-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/ (Senior Editor at Endpoint News)Elmer Democrat Senators in Big Pharma's pocket derails the Plan.Sirota 8-23 David Sirota 8-23-2021 "Dem Obstructionists Are Bankrolled By Pharma And Oil" https://www.dailyposter.com/dem-obstructionists-are-bankrolled-by-pharma-and-oil/ (an American journalist, columnist at The Guardian, and editor for Jacobin. He is also a political commentator and radio host based in Denver. He is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, political spokesperson, and blogger)Elmer Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over.USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/ Elmer | 10/16/21 |
SO-NC-Funny silly goofyTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Jason Lan 1To find truth, we must doubt everything. Prefer:~1~ Philosophers have been arguing over morality for thousands of years with no progress which proves we're not close to the truth so restarting from the bottom is key to accurate determination of truth.~2~ Logic – if we argue based on unjustified assumptions, then we are not being logical – logic key because we can only evaluate logical arguments.Sinnott-Armstrong 15 Sinnot-Armstrong, Walter, (Philosopher), "Moral Skepticism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17/9/15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/~~#MorExp. LHP AVThe final kind of argument derives from René Descartes (1641). I do not seem justified in believing that what I see is a lake if I cannot rule out the possibility that it is a bay or a bayou. Generalizing, if there is any contrary hypothesis that I cannot rule out, then I am not justified in believing that what I see is a lake. This is supposed to be a common standard for justified belief. When this principle is applied thoroughly, it leads to skepticism. All a skeptic needs to show is that, for each belief, there is some contrary hypothesis that cannot be ruled out. It need not be the same hypothesis for every belief, but skeptics usually buy wholesale instead of retail, so they seek a single hypothesis that is contrary to all (or many common) beliefs and which cannot be ruled out in any way. ~3~ Theory – Defending theories with illogical assumptions guts predictability since any possible wrong thing can emerge that we aren't prepared to contest.Thus, the aff must make 100 sure they're right to fulfill their burden or else you negate. Also, aff has an absolute burden of proof – any doubt means you negate since a claim not that claim can't be true so any risk of falsity is entirely false.Presumption and permissibility negate – a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways which outweighs on probability b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted which outweighs on empirics c) ought means the aff has to prove an obligation if that definition is legitimate which means lack of that obligation negates. Even under comparing worlds these arguments negate since it requires them to prove the statement that "the aff world is more desirable than the neg world" true. However, my args deny their ability to prove statements true so you presume neg. Also, I don't need to win presumption to win, I just need to win any of the arguments below because the aff is false, not just no offense and if I'm textual I'm fair because the topic is the most predictable, so you could've engaged and I deny the truth of the res by disagreeing that its true and exists so I've met my burden.A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa B~ Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Prefer on neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it's predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition. Also, better since it focuses on real world instances rather than recycling old frameworks and evaluate after the 1N so we both have one speech which is key to reciprocity.Negate:~Negate –2~ of is to "expressing an age" but the rez doesn't delineate a length of time3~ the is "denoting a disease or affliction" but the WTO isn't a disease4~ to is to "expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)" but the rez doesn't have a location5~ reduce is to "(of a person) lose weight, typically by dieting" but IP doesn't have a body to lose weight.6~ for is "in place of" but medicines aren't replacing IP.7~ medicine is "(especially among some North American Indian peoples) a spell, charm, or fetish believed to have healing, protective, or other power" but you can't have IP for a spell.~8~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn't logically going to happen, and fairness is terminally unquantifiable.~9~ In order to say I want to fix x problem, you must say that you want x problem to exist, since it requires the problem exist to solve, which makes any moral attempt inherently immoral.~10~ To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance ad infinitum – thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in finite time and theory is paradoxical since it uses arguments to justify being unable to make arguments~11~ Rule following fails a) We can infinitely question why to follow that rule, as all rules will terminate at the assertion of some principle with no further justification b) Rule are arbitrary since the agent has the ability to formulate a unique understanding of them. It becomes impossible to say someone is violating a rule, since they can always perceive their actions as a non-violation.~12~ In order to find the answer to a question, you must ask if there is an answer, otherwise asking the question is pointless, but that requires asking whether or not there's an answer to that question and so forth ad infinitum – this means the quest for knowledge fails and the acquisition of truth is impossible – negate since we can't ensure resolutional truth value.~13~ you can't be sure anything besides yourself exists – we could be deceived by a demon, dreaming, or in a simulation so the whole world could be nonexistent and text over spirit because it's the only verifiable metric and key to set long term interp norms.~14~ Solipsism is true—overwhelming mathematical probability provesCarroll 13 ~Sean Carroll (Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics) "The Higgs Boson vs. Boltzmann Brains" August 22nd 2013 Preposterous Universe http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/the-higgs-boson-vs-boltzmann-brains/ JW 1/22/15~ | 9/11/21 |
SO-NC-KantTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 2The starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations2~ 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.And, reason must be universal –~A~ a reason for one agent is a reason for another agent. I can't say 2+24 is true for me but not for you – that's incoherent.==== ~B~ 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. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's system of equal and outer freedom. 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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of themOffenseReducing IP is a form of free-riding that fails the universality test, but also uses the creators of the medicine as means to an end.Dyke 18 Dyke, Raymond. "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting - IPWatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 1 Oct. 2018, www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/.dhsNJ IP protections are consistent with libertarian theories of propertyZeidman 16 Zeidman, Bob. "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System - Ipwatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 5 Jan. 2016, www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/.dhsNJ | 10/19/21 |
SO-NC-Kant v2Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 3 | Opponent: Denton Guyer SB | Judge: Javier Navarette 2FrameworkThe starting point of morality is practical reason.1~ Bindingness: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations2~ 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.3~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.And, reason must be universal –~A~ a reason for one agent is a reason for another agent. I can't say 2+24 is true for me but not for you – that's incoherent.==== ~B~ 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, key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative's system of equal and outer freedom. 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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~2~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag.~3~ Resource disparities- Our framework ensures big squads don't have a comparative advantage since debates become about quality of arguments rather than quantity - their model crowds out small schools because they have to prep for every unique advantage under each aff, every counterplan, and every disad with carded responses to each of them~4~ If reasoners capable of setting and pursuing our own ends, that means we don't have free will which would kill any conception of morality since it only exists in opposition to immorality, if there is only one action, then it can be moral. That o/ws obligations assume that you can do otherwise, else action isn't moral just constitutive.Norwitz.~Michael Norwitz, "Free Will and Determinism," Philosophy Now, 1991.~ SHS ZSInwagen presents three premises in his main argument: that free will is in fact incompatible with determinism, that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism, and that (since we have moral responsibility) determinism is false. Hence, he concludes, we have free will. The argument for the first premise runs as follows ~p.56~: "If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us." The argument for the second premise ~p. 181~: "If OffenseReducing IP is a form of free-riding that fails the universality test, but also uses the creators of the medicine as means to an end.Dyke 18 Dyke, Raymond. "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting - IPWatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 1 Oct. 2018, www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/.dhsNJ IP protections are consistent with libertarian theories of propertyZeidman 16 Zeidman, Bob. "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System - Ipwatchdog.com: Patents andamp; Patent Law." IPWatchdog.com | Patents andamp; Patent Law, 5 Jan. 2016, www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/.dhsNJ | 10/19/21 |
SO-NC-PollsTournament: Grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Joey Georges | 9/11/21 |
SO-T-LeslieTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Alexander Torrez 1Interpretation: The Aff must defend an IP reduction for all medicines.Leslie 12 Leslie, Sarah-Jane. "Generics." In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Language, edited by Gillian Russell and Delia Fara, 355–366. Routledge, 2012. https://www.princeton.edu/~~sjleslie/RoutledgeHandbookEntryGenerics.pdf SM It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "nations ought to reduce protections for medicines" doesn't entail that nations ought to reduce protections for chemicals 2~ adverb test – adding "always" to the res doesn't substantially change its meaning because a reduction is universal.Violation: women's health medicinesStandards:~1~ Precision and semantics outweigh – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits – their model allows affs to defend anything from morgellons to progeria to the Mad Cow disease— there's no universal DA since each has different side effects and geopolitical implications – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations.~3~ TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves all your offenseVoters- | 10/16/21 |
SO-T-ReduceTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake KS | Judge: Johnathan Hsu, Diana Alvarez, Joseph Barquin 11~ Interpretation - Reduce means permanent reduction – it's distinct from "waive" or "suspend."Reynolds 59 (Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Waiver is temporary.Green 5/6 ~Andrew Green (Devex Contributing Reporter based in Berlin, his coverage focuses primarily on health and human rights and he has previously worked as Voice of America's South Sudan bureau chief and the Center for Public Integrity's web editor). "US backs waiver for intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines". Devex. 06 May 2021. Accessed 7/31/2021. https://www.devex.com/news/us-backs-waiver-for-intellectual-property-rights-for-covid-19-vaccines-99847 Xu~ 2~ Violation – the plan waives intellectual property protections "during pandemics", which is an suspension – don't let them get We Meets since their Plan defends a waiver.3~ Vote neg for limits and neg ground – re-instatement under any infinite number of conditions doubles aff ground – every plan becomes either temporary or permanent – you cherry-pick the best criteria and I must prep every aff while they avoid core topic discussions like reduction-based DAs which decks generics like Pharma Innovation and Bio-Tech.4~ TVA solves – permanently reduce COVID patents.5~ Paradigm Issues –a~ Topicality is Drop the Debater – it's a fundamental baseline for debate-ability.b~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can't be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.c~ No RVI's - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.1nc theory before 1ar theory- they were abusive first, irreparably skewed every speech | 10/19/21 |
SO-Theory-Spec IP ReductionsTournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill EN | Judge: Dylan Liu 11~ Interpretation: The affirmative must specify which intellectual property rights they reduceIntellectual Property is a vague, meaningless term – there's no normal means.Chopra 18, Samir. "The Idea of Intellectual Property Is Nonsensical and Pernicious: Aeon Essays." Aeon, Aeon Magazine, 12 Nov. 2018, aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-nonsensical-and-pernicious. Samir Choprais professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. He is the author of several books, including A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents (2011), co-authored with Laurence White.sid 2~ Violation: they don't3~ Standardsa~ Shiftiness – vague plan wording wrecks Neg Ground since it's impossible to know which DAs link or which CPs are competitive since different IP's have different implications – absent 1AC specification, the 1AR can squirrel out of links by saying they don't effect a certain protection or they don't reduce IP enough to trigger the link.Independently vote Negative on Presumption since the Aff gets struck down for being void-for-vagueness since they don't have an explanation of what is reduced or remaining after the Plan.Singer 10 Bill Singer 9-13-2010 "Yo, Congress, Keep On Truckin' — Can You Dig It?" http://www.brokeandbroker.com/index.php?a=blogandid=554 (Bill Singer is a lawyer who represents securities-industry firms, individual registered persons, Wall Street whistleblowers, and defrauded public investors. For over three decades, Singer has represented clients before the American Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly the NASD), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and in criminal investigations brought by various federal, state, and local prosecutors. Before entering the private practice of law, Singer was employed in the Legal Department of Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Co.; as a regulatory attorney with both the American Stock Exchange and the NASD (now FINRA); and as a Legal Counsel to Integrated Resources Asset Management. Singer was formerly Chief Counsel to the Financial Industry Association; General Counsel to the NASD Dissidents' Grassroots Movement; and General Counsel to the Independent Broker-Dealer Association. He was registered for a number of years as a Series 7 and Series 63 stockbroker.)Elmer b~ Topic Education – nuanced debates about IP requires specification since each form of IPR has specific issues related to it so generalization disincentivizes in-depth research. Topic Education outweighs since we only debate the topic for two months.Fairness is a voter since it's debate is a game so it's a jurisdictional question and sequencing to evaluating any other argument in the debate.Reductions Spec isn't regressive – it's a core discussion central to the literature, we've read a card proving predictability, and is a floor for topic debates.~Paradigm Issues~ –~AT CX Checks~ – CX doesn't check - 1~ Skews pre-round prep – key to in-depth clash, 2~ Judges don't flow CX, 3~ Unverifiable and Irresolvable, 4~ Skews CX Time since it forces me to clarify rather than pursue lines of argumentation, and 5~ Allows them to change advocacy based on what my CX questions are which irreparably skews my Neg Strat.~DTD~ – Reduction is DTD since a~ can't drop an absence of something and b~ it's a necessary floor for debate-ability since the damage is irreparable.~Competing Interps~ – Reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.~No RVI's~ – 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.~Comes above 1AR Theory~ – 1NC Theory outweighs on scope cause 1AC abuse effects every speech – we had to be abusive since the 1AC was abusive first. | 10/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/20/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
10/19/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
| |
9/11/21 | natarajavishnu16@gmailcom |
|