| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 1 | Harvard Westlake AL | Gilbert, Colton |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 3 | Strake Jesuit VJ | Bukowsky, Holden |
|
|
| |
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 6 | Little Rock Central MG | Paramo, Rodrigo |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Marlborough LK | Joel Lemuel |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 4 | Immaculate Heart AW | Wimmer, Jan |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | Doubles | Brookfield East DJ | Panel |
|
|
| |
| the olympics | 1 | myself | mental gymnastics |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AL | Judge: Gilbert, Colton 1AC - COVID Waiver |
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit VJ | Judge: Bukowsky, Holden 1AC - COVID waiver |
| Heart of Texas Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Paramo, Rodrigo 1AC - Transpacific Reimaginings |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Opponent: Marlborough LK | Judge: Joel Lemuel 1AC - COVID Vaccines |
| Jack Howe | 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart AW | Judge: Wimmer, Jan 1AC - CRISPR |
| Jack Howe | Doubles | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Panel 1AC - Korsgaard |
| the olympics | 1 | Opponent: myself | Judge: mental gymnastics Contact Information |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0--Contact InformationTournament: the olympics | Round: 1 | Opponent: myself | Judge: mental gymnastics Email: lisiyu0831@gmail.com I also use Facebook messenger, so you can find me on there: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009768186055 Lmk if you have disclosure preferences/requests. | 10/16/21 |
1--Theory--DisclosureTournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit VJ | Judge: Bukowsky, Holden Interpretation: Debaters must post links to all previous constructive speech docs read at the tournament at least 30 minutes prior to the round. To clarify, this means you must include all analytics, full text, underlining, and highlighting of all cards as read in round. Violation – they don’t Standards – 1 Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal framework justifications or cards, but that’s good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs. 2 leads to higher quality engagement b/c I know exactly what the neg says which internal link turns the aff b/c it leads to net better discussion. This is especially true given that you did not disclose the offense of the AC—no way I can engage with it or contest it. 3 Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify before round that cards aren’t miscut – full text doesn’t solve since you could have highlighted unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat | 10/17/21 |
SO--CP--Compulsory LicensingTournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AL | Judge: Gilbert, Colton Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to mandate compulsory licensing for medicines for COVID-19. Compulsory licensing is distinct from the aff and solves. Compulsory licensing mechanisms resolve access to tech. Doesn’t link to the net benefit---compulsory licensing maintaining intellectual property protections. | 10/16/21 |
SO--CP--ProductionTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough LK | Judge: Joel Lemuel 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. That comparatively solves better – IP rights don’t hinder vaccine cooperation, but manufacturing capacity is the current constraint. | 9/19/21 |
SO--DA--InnovationTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough LK | Judge: Joel Lemuel Pharma profits are up from COVID vaccines in particular, patent waivers threaten this Strong IP protection spurs innovation by encouraging risk-taking and incentivizing knowledge sharing -- prefer statistical analysis of multiple studies Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to prevent future pandemics and bioterror That causes extinction, which outweighs. | 9/19/21 |
SO--DA--Innovation V2Tournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AL | Judge: Gilbert, Colton The biotech industry is strong now---it’s weathered the COVID storm. Biotech is key to climate change solutions---waiving IP rights decks it by setting a sweeping precedent that chills innovation. Biotech innovation is uniquely key to combatting climate change. Global warming is an existential threat. | 10/16/21 |
SO--K--Set ColTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart AW | Judge: Wimmer, Jan Settler colonialism is a power relation structured around the logic of elimination – the libidinal drive to eliminate the native, evidenced by centuries of smallpox blankets, boarding schools, bounties, pipelines, etc. This fundamental logic consistently articulates itself across time and space, seeking to remove native presence from the land by assimilation and genocide. Indigeneity exists in a constant state of sickness – the confluence of power structures that create a world uninhabitable for the native. This violence is profoundly incalculable – how does one imagine sickness as the inevitable product of a world built to eliminate indigenous people? How do you cure the incurable? The construction of Western medicine and biomedical apparatuses is invested in orchestrating sickness – the discourse of health and medicine can never come face to face with the native, because it cannot theorize life at the end of the world. Settler humanitarianism kills natives – the politics of care and healing endorsed by the affirmative are not benign interventions but rather actively genocidal disruptions of indigenous care and medicine – your medicine makes indigenous people sicker. Settler subjectivity is inevitably concerned with the construction of a smooth wholeness – a coherent imago, which the settler constructs through disidentification with the violence of their origins. The alternative is reidentification – this is an iterative process that requires the refusal and disruption of settler spaces of coherence – you should refuse the research project of the affirmative as a method of subject formation. We are living in the crisis of modernity – civilizational collapse is imminent, brought on by the settler colonial present – only immediate commitment to decolonization can prevent human extinction – laundry list of scenarios. 1nc – Framing Our interpretation is that the affirmative should be responsible for their representations – you get to read the aff and weigh the consequences of the plan, but we get to weigh the consequences of the affirmative’s epistemology. Prefer:
2. Academy DA – the academy is built on land theft and exploitation – whether via land grants or biopiracy, academic spaces are constructed and solidified via the technologies of settler colonialism – this origin ensures investment in genocide absent direct engagement with the violent origins of the university the academy will never be capable of meaningful change. 1nc – Util Pain and pleasure fail as ethical starting points –
| 9/20/21 |
SO--K--Set Col--V2Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Panel Settler colonialism is a power relation structured around the logic of elimination – the libidinal drive to eliminate the native, evidenced by centuries of smallpox blankets, boarding schools, bounties, pipelines, etc. This fundamental logic consistently articulates itself across time and space, seeking to remove native presence from the land by assimilation and genocide. That removal recasts indigenous land as property, turning natives into ghosts, displaced and severed from their land – this ontological violence is all-encompassing Their philosophy is built on genocide and exploitation of native bodies – metaphysical dualisms justify and inform settler colonialism by creating distinctions between the rational and irrational subject – this justifies colonialism because we will win indigenous people are never seen as rational subjects – they will be unable to answer how their framework binds settlers to treat indigenous people as agents which means you vote negative. Settler colonialism embeds itself in structures of moral philosophy – winning that your ethical theory says racism is bad is insufficient – you need to articulate why it can disassociate itself from the implications of settler colonialism in every aspect of society. The universal human is built around conceptions of western humanity – its structurally inaccessible to the native. Settler subjectivity is inevitably concerned with the construction of a smooth wholeness – a coherent imago, which the settler constructs through disidentification with the violence of their origins. The alternative is reidentification – this is an iterative process that requires the refusal and disruption of settler spaces of coherence – you should refuse the research project of the affirmative as a method of subject formation. The role of the ballot is to adopt an ethic of incommensurability – political movements inevitably invest themselves in structures of settler innocence absent a total ideological commitment to decolonization. | 10/16/21 |
SO--Turn--BatailleTournament: Jack Howe | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Panel Our thesis-~--accumulation of excess energy and the problem of its expenditure makes transgression of law an inevitability of the human experience-~--traditional moral codes which discourage violence and encourage repression of these violent urges ultimately only result in more harmful violent outbursts. The alternative is a morality of evil that accepts the inevitability of violent outbursts and eschews moral prohibitionism in favor of accepting and encouraging those acts of violence that are least unacceptable-~--the alternative tactically expends energy to avoid those expenditures which are most harmful. | 10/16/21 |
SO--Turn--ChinaTournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AL | Judge: Gilbert, Colton Waiving IP protections sends a signal that encourages China to further erode U.S. IP---makes sustaining competitiveness impossible. Short-term competition key to prevent U.S.-China war. | 10/16/21 |
SO--Turn--ChinaTournament: Jack Howe | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Panel Waiving IP protections sends a signal that encourages China to further erode U.S. IP-~--makes sustaining competitiveness impossible. Short-term competition key to prevent U.S.-China war. | 10/16/21 |
SO--Turn--DedevTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart AW | Judge: Wimmer, Jan | 9/20/21 |
SO--T--FWTournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Paramo, Rodrigo Our interpretation is that the negative should not be burdened with rejoinder against AFFs that defend anything other than the desirability of a topical action. Resolved means to enact a policy by law. The WTO is the World Trade Organization – it regulates international trade and has 164 member nations. Medicines refer to physical substances. There are 4 types of IP the aff could reduce. Vote negative for predictable limits-~--allowing the affirmative to pick any grounds for the debate makes negative engagement impossible by skirting a predictable starting point, which makes all our preparation and research useless. Two impacts-~-- 1-~--Fairness-~--a predictable limit is the only way to give the neg a chance-~--radical aff choice shifts the grounds for the debate and puts the aff far ahead. Pre-tournament negative preparation is structured around topical plans as points of offense, which means anything else structurally favors the aff. That’s an intrinsic good-~--debate is a game and requires effective competition between the aff and the neg-~--the only way for any benefit to be produced from debate is if the judge can make a decision between two sides who have had a relatively equal chance to prepare for a common point of debate. 2-~-- Clash-~--debates over a stasis point incentivize argumentative refinement and self-questioning. Defending our position against a well-prepared opponent is key-~--it makes us more persuasive, informed, and forces us to adjust our position to become more effective advocates. Topical version of the aff – All the aff literally says IP is bad – only the state can reduce IP since it was the one that granted IP in the first place – here’s evidence that shows the plan deconstructs profit drives Competing interps – anything else invites judge intervention absent a clear brightline and this will be a debate about models of debate – if you have no idea what debates would look like in the world of the aff you should vote negative. Drop the debater – the entirety of the aff is being criticized which means drop the argument is incoherent. | 10/18/21 |
SO--T--MedicineTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart AW | Judge: Wimmer, Jan 1 Interpretation – Medicines solely refer to physical substances. 2 Violation – Genomic Medicine is not – it’s an “interdisciplinary medical specialty”. Their solvency advocate agrees, vidyasagar defines CRISPR as “specialized stretches of DNA”, not a specific medicine Medical Specialty refers to the field, not a particular substance. 3 The Standard is Limits – They explode the topic to include therapies, research areas, treatments, drug discovery techniques, etc. that eviscerate a stable locus of predictability. Limits is a sequencing question to Clash and in-depth Education since we’re only able to prepare if there’s stable core controversies. 4 TVA Solves – reduce IP protections on gene-based medicines. 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. | 9/20/21 |
SO--T--Medicine--V2Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough LK | Judge: Joel Lemuel Interpretation: Vaccines are not medicines. Prefer: it Comes from someone who works in the field of vaccines, OWs on real-worldness Violation – they defend IP waivers of vaccines Standards: 1---Limits: explodes the number of affs in the topic that are tangentially related to medicines (ie CRISPR, therapy, vitamins). Makes it impossible to predict the 1ac and decks neg prep, hurts clash 2---Ground: allows them to no link out of drug-specific DAs since they go through a different mechanism | 9/19/21 |
SO--T--PermanentTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 6 | Opponent: Marlborough LK | Judge: Joel Lemuel Interpretation: Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from “suspend” Violation: Vaccine waivers are temporary Standards: 1---Legal precision: it’s the best precedent within policy, shows how words are interpreted within the law 2---Limits: it doubles the number of affs on the topic since every suspension is of different times, (ex: suspend IP protections for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.) makes it impossible to predict which turns clash and innovation 3---Ground: decks link ground, all link cards are predicated on permanent changes because authors don’t care about temporary policies 4---Aff shiftiness: no definition of how long suspension will be and how it happens allow affs to skirt out of DAs by changing their suspension periods, makes it impossible to be neg and decks clash D Paradigm Issues – 1 T is DTD – A their abusive advocacy skewed the debate from the start B DTA is incoherent because we indict their advocacy 2 Comes before 1AR theory -- A If we had to be abusive it’s because it was impossible to engage their aff B T outweighs on scope because their abuse affected every speech that came after the 1AC C Topic norms outweigh on urgency – we only have a few months to set them 3 Use competing interps on T – A topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical B only our interp sets norms -- reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention C reasonability causes a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/16/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
10/17/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
10/18/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
9/20/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | lisiyu0831@gmailcom |
|