Opponent: Northland Christian LB | Judge: Randall Loofbourrow
1AC - Vaccine NC - Climate Patents T Reduce 1AR - all 2NR - Case 2AR - Case
Loyola
1
Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Truman Le
1AC - Vaccines NC - T CP DA 1AR - All 2NR - T 2AR - T
Loyola
3
Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Ben Cortez
AC - Evergreening NC - Withdrawl DA T Medicine Spec 1AR - all 2NR - spec 2AR - spec
Loyola
5
Opponent: Vestavia GJ | Judge: Claudia Ribera
AC - Abject NC - FW K DA 1AR - all 2NR - FWK 2AR - Case FWK
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
G - Contact Info
Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All Email: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com Number: 9142753584 Messenger: Ali Ahmad (preferred method of contact)
Note 4 Loyola: some of cite boxes are missing because of a glitch
9/4/21
SO - Homogenization K
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Vestavia GJ | Judge: Claudia Ribera Link: They use catch-all terms like “otherness” and “abject” to group anti-Blackness in with other forms of oppression — I’ll quote from the doc: “This semiotic formation is the ideological disposition against otherness that drives antiblack violence.”
Impact: CAMOUFLAGING — they deny the UNIQUE nature of anti-Black oppression, which is based on the specific negation of Blackness — they make it impossible to confront the PARTICULAR causes of that type of oppression. Warren: Calvin Warren Associate Professor in African American Studies and WGSS. He received his B.A. in Rhetoric/Philosophy (College Scholar) from Cornell University and his MA and Ph.D. in African American/American Studies from Yale University “Black Care” The liquid blackness journal, 2017. GC/CH We can consider the metaphysical “injury” a laceration and a hieroglyph. What is “stripped” or ruptured leaves a mark—a sign of destruction that is itself a “witness” of the violation. As witness, the sign itself bears a tragic testimony, a recounting of the violence. But what is the sign communicating? The sign, the laceration, becomes a hieroglyph open to a cultural reading and hermeneutical practice. While what it says is not easily interpreted, it can be felt or registered on a different plane of existence. We rely on the affective dimension to translate the ineffable, or more precisely, to provide form for an experience anti-blackness places outside ethics and the “customary lexis of life and culture,” as Hortense Spillers would describe it. Feelings provide a necessary vessel for containing unbearable suffering and a vehicle for communicating this experience when traditional avenues of communication are absent. Put differently, affect is a communicative structure, a testimony, for articulating suffering without end. The affective dimension is just as expansive as it is deep, so expressivity is boundless within this dimension. Affect is an invaluable resource for those enduring a metaphysical holocaust; it is the premier form of expressivity. Spillers presents metaphysical violence as a “laceration or wounding.” The undecipherable signs produced: ...render a kind of hieroglyphic of the flesh whose severe disjunctures come to be hidden to the cultural seeing by skin color. We might ask if this phenomenon of marking and branding actually “transfers” from one generation to another, finding its various symbolic substitutions in an efficacy of meanings that repeat the initiating moments?4 What is injured, then, is the “flesh”—the “primary narrative... seared divided, ripped-apartness, riveted to the ship’s hole, fallen, or “escaped” overboard.” As a “primary narrative,” the flesh is the metaphysical target of violence. The flesh, then, is the structure of black existence, an ontological grounding of sorts, which anti-blackness incessantly targets. It is the flesh that becomes injured, and this injury leaves a “laceration” or hieroglyph attesting to the brutality. Thus, the laceration is not just a corporeal sign; although the body might bear its marks, it is registered elsewhere. But what is of interest here is that the laceration as hieroglyph might actually “transfer from one generation to the next, finding its various symbolic substitutions in an efficacy of meanings that repeat the initiating moment.” The laceration speaks through symbolic substitutions across time, across generations. In other words, the laceration is a constitutive feature of black existence in an anti-black world, and it travels; anti- blackness mobilizes it across time (and space). It is indecipherable because it is paradoxical: it is consistent and substitutional, individual and generational, mobile and intransigent. One cannot capture it exactly as it moves across generations, but the metaphysical harm it indexes is felt deeply. Thus, what the teenager in Baltimore experienced was a transferable laceration, one which is flesh-destroying. The injury is much more than humiliation—rather, it is an onto-metaphysical destruction.
Alt: Reject the aff’s grouping of anti-Blackness with generalized abjection, and replace it with Black Marxism, a negation of the negation of a world of racial capitalism. This means we call out the aff’s grouping together of VERY DIFFERENT FORMS OF OPPRESSION as fundamentally anti-Black — it’s a move to ignore the unique nature of anti-Black violence. Robinson: Robinson, Cedric. Professor in the Department of Black Studies and the Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. University of North Carolina Press, 2000 (originally published in 1983). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469663746_robinson GC With each historical moment, however, the rationale and cultural mechanisms of domination became more transparent. Race was its epistemology, its ordering principle, its organizing structure, its moral authority, its economy of justice, commerce, and power. Aristotle, one of the most original aristocratic apologists, had provided the template in Natural Law. In inferiorizing women ("TIhe deliberative faculty of the soul is not present at all in the slave; in a female it is present but ineffective" Politics,i26oaiz), non-Greeks, and all laborers (slaves, artisans, farmers, wage workers, etc.: "Tlhe mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts" Nicomachean Ethics, 1095b20), Aristotle had articulated an uncompromising racial construct. And from the twelfth century on, one European ruling order after another, one cohort of clerical or secular propagandists following another, reiterated and embellished this racial calculus.14As the Black Radical Tradition was distilled from the racial antagonisms which were arrayed along a continuum from the casual insult to the most ruthless and lethal rules of law; from the objectifications of entries in marine cargo manifests, auction accountancy, plantation records, broadsheets and newspapers; from the loftiness of Christian pulpits and biblical exegesis to the minutia of slave-naming, dress, types of food, and a legion of other significations, the terrible culture of race was revealed. Inevitably, the tradition was transformed into a radical force. And in its most militant manifestation, no longer accustomed to the resolution that flight and withdrawal were sufficient, the purpose of the struggles informed by the tradition became the overthrow of the whole race-based structure. In the studies of these struggles, and often through engagement with them, the Black Radical Tradition began to emerge and overtake Marxism in the work of these Black radicals. W. E. B. Du Bois, in the midst of the antilynching movement, C. L. R. James, in the vortex of anticolonialism, and Richard Wright, the sharecropper's son, all brought forth aspects of the militant tradition which had informed successive generations of Black freedom fighters. These predecessors were Africans by origins, predominantly recruited from the same cultural matrices, subjected to similar and interrelated systems of servitude and oppression, and mobilized by identical impulses to recover their dignity. And over the centuries, the liberation projects of these men and women in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Americas acquired similar emergent collective forms in rebellion and marronage, similar ethical and moral articulations of resistance; increasingly, they merged as a function of what Hegel might have recognized as the negation of the negation in the world system. Hegel's "cunning of history," for one instance, was evident when in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Franco-Haitian slaveowners fled to Louisiana, Virginia, and the Carolinas with as many slaves as they could transport, thereby also transporting the Haitian Revolution. The outrage, courage, and vision of that revolution helped inspire the Pointe Coupee Conspiracy in 1795 in Louisiana, the Gabriel-led rebellion in 1800 in Virginia, and the rebellion organized by Denmark Vesey in 1822 outside of Charleton.'And, in turn, Denmark's movement informed the revolutionary tract, APPEAL in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World, But in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the United States of America, penned by David Walker in Boston in 1829.
9/5/21
SO - Med Spec
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Ben Cortez Interpretation and Violation: The affirmative debater must specify the type of medicine they defend in a delineated text in the 1AC – they didn’t
Medicine is the core question of the topic and there’s no consensus on normal means so you must spec. Hofmann 21: Hofmann, Bjorn Institute for the Health Sciences at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, PO Box 1, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway “Vagueness in Medicine: On Disciplinary Indistinctness, Fuzzy Phenomena, Vague Concepts, Uncertain Knowledge, and Fact-Value-Interaction” Springer Link, July 05, 2021 AA https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-021-09573-4 This article investigates five kinds of vagueness in medicine: disciplinary, ontological, conceptual, epistemic, and vagueness with respect to descriptive-prescriptive connections. First, medicine is a discipline with unclear borders, as it builds on a wide range of other disciplines and subjects. Second, medicine deals with many indistinct phenomena resulting in borderline cases. Third, medicine uses a variety of vague concepts, making it unclear which situations, conditions, and processes that fall under them. Fourth, medicine is based on and produces uncertain knowledge and evidence. Fifth, vagueness emerges in medicine as a result of a wide range of fact-value-interactions. The various kinds of vagueness in medicine can explain many of the basic challenges of modern medicine, such as overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and medicalization. Even more, it illustrates how complex and challenging the field of medicine is, but also how important contributions from the philosophy can be for the practice of medicine. By clarifying and, where possible, reducing or limiting vagueness, philosophy can help improving care. Reducing the various types of vagueness can improve clinical decision-making, informing individuals, and health policy making.
1 Stable Advocacy: 1AR clarification delinks neg positions that prove why specific medicines are bad by saying it isn’t a medicine they defend– wrecks neg ballot access and kills in depth clash – CX doesn’t check since it kills 1NC construction pre-round.
2 Prep Skew: I don’t know what they will be willing to clarify until CX which means I could go 6 minutes planning to read a disad and then get screwed over in CX when they spec a different definition of medicine. This means that CX can’t check because the time in between is when I should be formulating my strat and waiting until then is the abuse. Key fairness because I won’t be able to use the strat I formulated if you skewed my prep and will have a time disadvantage.
9/4/21
SO - Production CP
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Truman Le Text: The United States federal government should: - substantially increase production and global distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine, specifically providing all necessary vaccines to India and South Africa, and - cooperate with allies to achieve increased production and global distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Solves better – IP rights don’t hinder vaccine cooperation, but manufacturing capacity is the current constraint. Sauer 6-17: Sauer, Hans Deputy General Counsel, Biotechnology Industry Organization. “Web event — Confronting Joe Biden’s proposed TRIPS waiver for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments” https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/210617-Confronting-Joe-Bidens-proposed-TRIPS-waiver.pdf?x91208andx91208 But contrary to what Lori said, there are genuine real problems in the supply chain that are not caused by patents, that are simply caused by the unavailability and the constraints on existing capacity. There is in this world such a thing as maxed-out capacity that just can’t be increased on a dime. It’s not all due to intellectual property. This is true for existing vaccines as well as for vaccine raw materials. There are trade barriers. There are export restrictions that we should all be aware of and that we need to work on. And there are very real political, I think, interests in finding an explanation for how we got to this place that absolve governments around the world from their own policy decisions that they made in the past. In the United States, again, it was the declared policy of the previous administration, as well as this one, that we would vaccinate healthy college kids and go all down the line and offer a vaccine to everybody who wants it before we start sharing any with grandmothers in Burkina Faso. That was the policy. You can agree with it or disagree with it, but that was policy. We had export restrictions in place before a lot of other countries did. And that, too, contributed to unequal access of vaccines around the world. Another thing that was predictable was that politicians and governments around the world who want to be seen as proactive, on the ball, in control, for a long time were actually very indecisive, very unsure about how to address the COVID problem, which has so many dimensions. Vaccines are only one of those. But with respect to vaccines, not many governments took decisive action, put money on the table, put bets on multiple horses, before we knew whether these vaccines would work, would be approved. And it was governments in middle-income countries who now, I think, justifiably are concerned that they’re not getting fast enough access, who didn’t have the means and who didn’t have the decision-making structure to place the same bets on multiple horses, if you will, that were placed in the relatively more wealthy, global North and global West. But there is, I think, a really good and, with hindsight, predictable explanation of how we got to this place, and I think it teaches us something about how to fix the problem going forward. So why will the waiver not work? Well, first of all, with complex technology like vaccines, Lori touched on it, reverse engineering, like you would for a small molecule drug, is much more difficult if not impossible. But it depends very much more than small molecule drugs on cooperation, on voluntary transfer of technology, and on mutual assistance. We have seen as part of the pandemic response an unprecedented level of collaborations and cooperation and no indication that IP has stood in the way of the pandemic response. The waiver proponents have found zero credible examples of where IP has actually been an obstacle, where somebody has tried to block somebody else from developing a COVID vaccine or other COVID countermeasure, right? It’s not there. Second, the myth of this vast global capacity to manufacture COVID vaccines that somehow exists out there is unsubstantiated and frankly, in my opinion, untrue. But there is no such thing as vast untapped, idle capacity that could be turned around on a dime to start making COVID vaccines within weeks or even months. This capacity needs to be built; it needs to be established. And at a time when time is of the essence to beat this pandemic, starting capacity-building discussions is helpful, but it won’t be the answer to beat this pandemic. It will be the answer if we do everything right to beating the next pandemic. And if we learn any lesson of this, and then I will stop, is that the COVID waiver as well as the situation in which we find ourselves — if anything, it’s a reminder that we definitely have to take global capacity-building more seriously than we did in the past. That is true for the global North, as well as for middle-income countries — all of whom have to dedicate themselves much more determinedly to pandemic preparedness. And there’s a need to invest both in preparedness and in public health systems that hasn’t happened in the wake of past pandemic threats. This is what we will need to do. We will need to reduce export restrictions, and we will need to rededicate ourselves to preparing for the next pandemic. As far as this pandemic goes, there are 11 vaccines around the world that are already being shot into arms, only four of which come from the global North. How many more vaccines do we want? I don’t know, maybe 11 is enough if we start making more of them. But there are manufacturers around the world who know how to do this — including in China, including in India, and including in Russia. All developed their homegrown vaccines, apparently without interference by IP rights, right? So let’s make more of those. I think that’s going to be the more practical and realistic answer to solving the problem. And we need to lean on governments to stop export controls and to dedicate themselves to more global equity.
9/4/21
SO - Resilience DA
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Vestavia GJ | Judge: Claudia Ribera The aff’s appeals to “transgression” endorse the politics of capitalistic RESILIENCE – their PERFORMANCE is packaged as a 6-minute, consumable product that endorses counteract abject. James 1: James, Robin. Associate Professor of Philosophy, UNC Charlotte “Incandescence, Melancholy, and Feminist Bad Vibes: A Response to Ziarek’s Feminist Aesthetics and the Politics of Modernism.” Differences 25 (2), 2016. CH Neoliberalism co-opts this incandescence (or at least the most visible, legible part of its spectrum), domesticating its critical force into the means of producing aesthetic pleasure and reproducing social normativity. Potentiality has been “upgraded” into resilience.9 In resilient art, formal experimentation cultivates, or incites (to use a more Foucaultian term), shocks and feeds the resultant shockwaves back into the system.10 This feedback supports rather than destabilizes hegemonic institutions. The aesthetic damage through which modernist art established its heteronomous/ autonomous position of critique—stuttering, fragmented, degraded, aleatory, dissonant—is now the very medium of normalization.11 Neoliberal resilience, in other words, is a method or process of recycling modernist damage. For example, if modernist art invested aesthetic pleasure in the objectification of women (what Laura Mulvey famously calls scopophilia), neoliberal art invests aesthetic pleasure in women’s spectacular assumption of subjectivity—what Ziarek calls incandescence. If in modernity we liked doing damage to women, we now like to see women overcome that damage.12 This means that we expect women to perform their damage as a baseline from which “good” women then progress. That damage is the fuel for incandescent fires, so it must be constantly incited and invoked so that there’s something for incandescent women to ignite. In this way, resilience discourse normalizes traditional patriarchal damage (e.g., the damage of exclusion and objectification) as a systemic or background condition that individual women are then responsible for overcoming. “Undoing . . . feminism while simultaneously appearing to be engaging in a wellinformed and even well-intended response to feminism” (McRobbie 1), resilient incandescence is quintessentially postfeminist. We, the audience, use our identification with the resilient heroine as a way to disidentify with and (supposedly) transgress the imperatives of modernist patriarchy. This is why, as Ziarek explains, audiences have a “sympathetic identification with subversive femininity, with the mother avenging the murderous sacrifice of her daughter for political ends, rather than with the murderous father/king” (104). We enjoy women’s spectacular subjectivization (i.e., their overcoming of scopophilic objectification) because this distances us from unfashionable patriarchal formations and tastes (i.e., this latter scopophilia). In postfeminist neoliberalism, “bearing witness to both the destruction of women’s artistic capacities and women’s revolutionary aspirations” (5) becomes a source of aesthetic pleasure not because it’s revolutionary, but because it’s normative. To use Jack Halberstam’s term, we like our women to “go gaga” because this incandescence, this “unpredictable feminine” (114) methodology allows us to eke even more light out of otherwise exhausted enlightenment modernity. If we’ve reached, as Ziarek discusses, the so-called end of art and the end of history (and the end of tonality and the end of representation and, well, the end of modernity), then the only way to find more resources is, like Pixar’s wall-e, by sifting through our vast piles of waste. And in that waste heap is abject femininity (what musicologist Susan Cook calls the feminized “abject popular”). Femininity is abject because its exclusion from patriarchy is what constitutes patriarchy as a coherent system. In both Ziarek’s aesthetics of potentiality and in resilience discourse, women artists do the cultural work of remaking abjection or constitutive exclusion into ecstatic radiance.13 In the former case, that work is revolutionary; in the latter case, that work normalizes. Resilience discourse transposes feminist revolution into a nationalist, patriarchal, white supremacist practice. Take, for example, Katy Perry’s “Firework,” in which the lyrics trace the affective journey from dejection to radiant exceptionality. The song begins by asking listeners to identify with feelings of irrelevance, weakness, loneliness, and hopelessness; it posits and affirms damage, suffering, and pain. But then Perry’s narrator argues that in spite and perhaps because of this damage, the listener has precisely the means to connect to others, to make a difference, to have hope: “There’s a spark in you / You just gotta ignite the light and let it shine.” She uses the metaphor of fireworks (and their association with u.s. Independence Day celebrations) to describe the listener’s self-transformation from black dust to shining light: you may feel like trash, but if you can just light yourself on fire, that trash will burn with a dazzling radiance that lights up the sky, just as it lights up audiences’ faces. Here, Perry transforms abjection—feeling like trash, unmoored, socially dead—into incandescent triumph. In the song, the addressee’s personal triumph evokes u.s. nationalist narratives of overcoming colonization (i.e., the Declaration of Independence, celebrated on the Fourth of July). Feminine incandescence—the transformation of waste and melancholy into glowing potential—is no longer revolutionary. Not only parallel to u.s. nationalism, it is the very means for reproducing normativity.
Turns case: their narrative of “overcoming” PERPETUATES CYCLES OF OBJECTIFICATION, requiring a public performance for a spectator’s benefit. James 2: James, Robin. Associate Professor of Philosophy, UNC Charlotte Resiliency and Melancholy: Pop Music, Feminism, Neoliberalism. Zero Books: Winchester, 2015. CH (d) “Look, I Overcame!” Resilience must be performed explicitly, legibly, and spectacularly. Overcoming is necessary, but insufficient; to count and function as resilience, this overcoming must be accomplished in a visible or otherwise legible and consumable manner. Overcoming is a type of “affective labor” which, as Steven Shaviro puts it, “is productive only to the extent that it is a public performance. It cannot unfold in the hidden depths; it must be visible and audible” (PCA 49n33). In order to tune into feminine resilience and feed it back into its power supply, MRWaSP has to perceive it as such. “Look, I Overcame!” is the resilient subject’s maxim or mantra. Gender and race have always been “visible identities,” to use philosopher Linda Martin Alcoff’s term, identities strongly tied to one’s outward physical appearance. However, gendered/ racialized resilience isn’t visible in the same way that conventional gender and racial identities are visible. To clarify these differences, it’s helpful to think of resilience in terms of a “Look, I Overcame!” imperative. “Look, I Overcame!” is easy to juxtapose to Frantz Fanon’s “Look, a Negro!”, which is the touchstone for his analysis of gendered racialization in “The Fact of Blackness.” In both cases, looking is a means of crafting race/gender identities and distributing white patriarchal privilege. But, in the same way that resilience discourse “upgrades” traditional methods for crafting identities and distributing privilege, the “looking” in “Look, I Overcame!” is an upgrade on the “looking” in “Look, a black person! Negro!” According to Fanon, the exclamation “Look, a Negro!” racializes him as a black man. To be “a Negro” a black person is to be objectified by the white supremacist gaze. This gaze fixes him as an object, rather than an ambiguous transcendence (which is a more nuanced way of describing the existentialist concept of subjectivity). “The black man,” as Fanon argues, “has no ontological resistance for the white man” (BSWM 110) because, as an object and not a mutually-recognized subject, he cannot return the white man’s gaze (“The Look” that is so important to Sartre’s theory of subjectivity in Being and Nothingness). The LIO narrative differs from Fanon’s account in the same way it differs from Iris Young’s account of feminine body comportment: in resilience discourse, objectification isn’t an end but a means. any impediment posed by the damage wrought by the white/male gaze is a necessary prerequisite for subjectivity, agency, and mutual recognition. In other words, being looked at isn’t an impediment, but a resource. Resilience discourse turns objectification (being looked at) into a means of subjectification (overcoming). It also makes looking even more efficient and profitable than simple objectification could ever be. Recognizing and affirming the affective labor of the resilient performer, the spectator feeds the performer’s individual overcoming into a second-order therapeutic narrative: our approbation of her overcoming is evidence of our own overcoming of our past prejudices. This spectator wants to be seen by a wider audience as someone who answers the resilient feminine subject’s hail, “Look, I Overcame!”. Just as individual feminine subjects use their resilience as proof of their own goodness, MRWaSP uses the resilience of its “good girls” as proof that they’re the “good guys”—that its social and ethical practices are truly just, and that we really mean it this time when we say everyone is equal. For example, the “resilience” of “our” women is often contrasted with the supposed “fragility” of ThirdWorld women of color.
9/5/21
SO - T Reduce
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Truman Le Interpretation: Affirmatives must reduce intellectual property protections for medicines unconditionally and permanently. 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) 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 waiver is temporary. Gupta and Namboodiri 21: Gupta, Vineeta a maternal and child health physician, human rights advocate, and a passionate activist for health equity. As director, she leads the ACTION Global Health Advocacy Partnership as well as a volunteer-based policy advocacy organization that unites the Indian diaspora to mount a prompt, global response to the COVID-19 crisis in India. Dr. Gupta has more than 20 years of tri-sector experience in leading and supporting projects in more than 25 countries. In addition to conducting organization development, diversity, inclusion, equity, and global health equity workshops, Gupta has designed and facilitated partnership projects to achieve agreements and results on complex issues. She has been invited to speak in more than 60 universities in the US and Europe. Namboodiri, Sreenath LLM, LLB, is assistant professor at the School of Ethics, Governance, Culture and Social Systems at Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth and a post-graduate on law of intellectual property rights (IPR) from Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi. His areas of interest are in intellectual property rights vis-à-vis health systems, sustainable development and innovation, pharmaceutical patents, knowledge governance, and technology and law. He is an honorary fellow of the Centre for Economy, Development, and Law since 2013. Namboodiri is part of the editorial team of Elenchus Law Review, a biannual peer-reviewed journal from the Centre (CEDandL). He has also worked as a guest lecturer in Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi, where he provided courses on access to medicine and IP, and patents and biotechnology “America And The TRIPS Waiver: You Can Talk The Talk, But Will You Walk The Walk?,” July 13, 2021 AA In October 2020, the governments of India and South Africa, with the support of 62 WTO member states, proposed a TRIPS Agreement waiver proposal that would temporarily waive intellectual property rights protections for technologies needed to prevent, contain, or treat COVID-19, including vaccines and vaccine-related technologies. More than 100 low-income countries support this proposal, but it is receiving much opposition from many high-income countries, including some European Union (EU) member states, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. On May 5, 2021, the Biden administration announced support for negotiating this waiver, intensifying debate in the US and the EU—but so far the US has not gone further than its announcement of support. No plan text in a vacuum – the offense defines what the plan looks like. Worst case scenario, you vote neg on presumption because all their solvency evidence is about a waiver.
Prefer my interpretation: 1 Limits: they open the door to an infinite number of affs – from any condition to any time restriction. Each one becomes its own new aff. 2 Ground: condition and delay counterplans are all ground we are entitled to because they disprove the idea of passing the plan right now. 3 Topic lit: authors aren’t writing about a reduction that happens a few years or now or under a specific condition. 4 Semantics: not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution.
9/4/21
SO - T Reduce v2
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Ben Cortez Interpretation: Affirmatives must defend only current intellectual property protections for medicines. Reduce means current-~--not preventing future action Naporn Popattanachai 18. This thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of Nottingham Trent University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law. “Regional Cooperation Addressing Marine Pollution from Land-Based Activities: an Interpretation of Article 207 of The Law OF THE SEA CONVENTION FOCUSING on Monitoring, Assessement, and Surveillance of the Pollution” http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/33374/1/Naporn20Popattanachai202018.pdf For the second question, the provision demonstrates that the goal of adoption of such laws and regulations must be to ‘prevent, reduce, and control’ MPLA. In so doing, the LOSC obliges States to ‘taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards, and recommended practices and procedures’.480 Having considered the ordinary meanings of the term ‘prevent, reduce, and control’, ‘prevent’ means ‘to stop something from happening or someone from doing something.’481 The word ‘reduce’ means ‘to make something smaller in size, amount, degree, importance etc.’482 and the word ‘control’ means ‘to order, limit, or rule something or someone's actions or behaviour.’ 483 From the meanings, the term ‘prevent’ suggests an action to stop the future occurrence of something, whereas the terms ‘reduce’ and ‘control’, noting their difference, point to an action dealing with something that has already happened and continues to occur, but needs to be made smaller, limited or regulated. Also, control also applies to future pollution in the sense that it limits the future pollution to be created or emitted not to exceed the specified level. Therefore, the preliminary reading of these terms suggests that laws and regulations adopted to deal with MPLA must yield the result that conforms with these terms. In so doing, the adoption of laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control MPLA can be done by legislating primary or secondary regulations with the use of various legal techniques and procedures and are underpinned by some rules and principles of international law discussed in the previous chapter. These legal techniques and procedures can be used to achieve the prevention, reduction and control of MPLA depending on the design and use of them. Noting that the measures outlined below are not exhaustive and not exclusively limited to implement any specific obligation, these are typical legal techniques and procedures used to prevent, reduce, and control pollution and therefore protect the environment. They can be categorised into two groups, that is, (1) substantive and (2) procedural legal techniques and measures. They can be discussed hereunder. Violation: CX proves the plan prevents future intellectual property protections. Vote Neg: 1 Limits – they explode the topic to an infinite number of medicines because any medicines that can exist after the aff. Only my interpretation solves because it limits the topic to IPPs that currently exist. At best, the aff’s extra-T still links to all our offense since they can get extra-T advantages to solve disads and defend whatever they want, magnifying limits. 2 Semantics – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution.
9/4/21
SO - T-Framework
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Vestavia GJ | Judge: Claudia Ribera Interp and Violation: The affirmative must only defend the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines– they don’t.
a legal or official determination especially: a legislative declaration
The WTO refers to a legislative body. WTO: “What is the World Trade Organization” wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm No Date AA The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.
Vote neg for predictable limits—post-facto topic adjustment structurally favors the aff by manipulating the balance of prep which is anchored around the resolution as a stasis point. Not debating the topic allows someone to specialize in one area of the library for 4 years giving them a huge edge over people who switch research focus every 2 months, which means their arguments are presumptively false because they haven’t been subject to well-researched scrutiny. Two Impacts –
Fairness—debate is fundamentally a game which requires both sides to have a relatively equal shot at winning and is necessary for any benefit to the activity. That outweighs: A decision-making: every argument concedes to the validity of fairness i.e. that the judge will make a fair decision based on the arguments presented. This means if they win fairness bad vote neg on presumption because you have no obligation to fairly evaluate their arguments. B probability: voting aff can’t solve any of their impacts but it can solve ours. All the ballot does is tell tab who won which can’t stop any violence or resolve subjectivity claims but can resolve the fairness imbalance in this debate.
2. Testing – a clear stasis point of the rez allows for clash over a topic that is pre-decided, engagement with arguments and clash are the reason why we are in the activity. This fundamentally turns the affirmative because you prevent us from engaging in the affirmative - we don’t solve real world harms in this round so we should endorse the best strategy and model to engage.
TVA solves – read the racial cap aff on this topic – it talks about the racialized impact of COVID, and how vaccines check back for that. You should also evaluate their answers to T through a lens of switch side – their ability to read this affirmative on the negative solves all their offense so vote negative on preserving some form of competitive equity within debate.
Use competing interps – topicality is question of models of debate which they should have to proactively justify, and we’ll win reasonability links to our offense.
Drop the debater - dropping the arg is severance which moots 7 minutes of 1nc offense.
No RVI’s – it’s illogical because your expected to be topical/fair.