Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Leah Clark-Villanueva
Interp – Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from temporary suspensions.
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)
Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. *13 The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.
Violation – the plan waives intellectual property protections temporarily, which is an indefinite suspension. 1AC plan text says that it only waives ip protections during public health emergencies
Net Benefits –
1 Limits – Their interpretation turns every single possible combo of IPR into an aff—they can read affs about different types of patents, DE, ME including utility, design, and plant, biological exclusivity, orphan drug exclusivity, Clinical Investigation exclusivity, Qualified Infectious Disease Product, and new chemical entities
That massively expands aff ground and makes it impossible for the neg to predict and prep for every aff – means no unified neg generics because you can’t read any DA against a partial reduction aff since they keep some IPP in place to solve neg internal links— makes effective neg prep on a big topic completely impossible.
Limits is a VI for fairness—they let the neg generate good prep, and forces in-depth debates
DTD on T – the debate shouldn’t have happened if they were abusive
Competing Interps on T since its binary and a question of models – Good enough isn’t good—there can be no reasonable interp of what the topic actually means
No RVIs on T – 1 Illogical—T is a gateway issue, winning T is meeting a baseline to have the debate to begin with 2 T is reactionary, they shouldn’t win for meeting their preround burden