Houston Memorial Cho Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 2 | Lake Highland AB | JP Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 3 | Jet Sun | Sam |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Quarters | asdfas | fds |
|
| ||
| Grapevine | 5 | Lily broussard | megan wu |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Andrew Kim | Andres Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 2 | Marlborough ML | David Dosch |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 3 | Harker KB | Tom Evnen |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 9 | asf | gdsa |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 5 | Peninsula RM | Tej Gedela |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | Doubles | Harker AS | Panel |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Daniel Rohacs | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Quarters | a | a |
|
| ||
| Loyola | 3 | Southlake Caroll EP | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Alyssa | Gordo |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Daniel Rohacs | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Doubles | Evergreen Valley SS | Panel |
|
|
| |
| Patterson | 2 | Broken Arrow JM | Taj |
|
|
| |
| Patterson | 4 | Isidore Newman EE | Curry, Ausha |
|
|
| |
| Patterson | 5 | Coppell HA | Matthew Slencsak |
|
|
| |
| Patterson | Octas | Cabot AC | Panel |
|
|
| |
| f | Semis | f | f |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland AB | Judge: JP Stuckert 1AC - Evergreening |
| Grapevine | 3 | Opponent: Jet Sun | Judge: Sam 1AC - Evergreening must disclose case cards |
| Grapevine | 5 | Opponent: Lily broussard | Judge: megan wu 1AC - Evergreening |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Andrew Kim | Judge: Andres Shaw 1AC - Evergreening |
| Greenhill | 2 | Opponent: Marlborough ML | Judge: David Dosch 1AC - Evergreening V3 |
| Greenhill | 3 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Tom Evnen 1AC - Evergreening v3 Contact Info Theory Disclose post-round citations Greenhill |
| Greenhill | 9 | Opponent: asf | Judge: gdsa asdf |
| Greenhill | 5 | Opponent: Peninsula RM | Judge: Tej Gedela 1AC - evergreening |
| Greenhill | Doubles | Opponent: Harker AS | Judge: Panel 1AC - Evergreening |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Daniel Rohacs | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - Evergreening |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Southlake Caroll EP | Judge: Truman Le 1AC - Evergreening |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Alyssa | Judge: Gordo 1AC - evergreening indexcials |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Daniel Rohacs | Judge: Phoenix Pittman 1AC - Evergreening |
| Loyola | Doubles | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Panel 1AC - Evergreening v2 |
| Patterson | 2 | Opponent: Broken Arrow JM | Judge: Taj 1AC- Bioterror |
| Patterson | 4 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Curry, Ausha 1AC - Evergreening |
| Patterson | 5 | Opponent: Coppell HA | Judge: Matthew Slencsak 1AC - Evergreening |
| Patterson | Octas | Opponent: Cabot AC | Judge: Panel 1AC - Biopiracy |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - READ ME CITES UPDATE GRAPEVINETournament: Grapevine | Round: Quarters | Opponent: asdfas | Judge: fds | 9/12/21 |
0 - READ ME IMPORTANT CITESTournament: Loyola | Round: Quarters | Opponent: a | Judge: a | 9/4/21 |
0 - contactTournament: f | Round: Semis | Opponent: f | Judge: f Hi, I'm Sebastian. | 9/4/21 |
0- Grapevine OS NoteTournament: Grapevine | Round: Quarters | Opponent: asdfas | Judge: fds | 9/12/21 |
1 - G - Contact Info TheoryTournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Tom Evnen Interpretation: Debaters must, on the page with their name and the school they attend, disclose their contact informationViolation: They didn't
Prefer1~ Inclusion – Novices would have a way to contact you about your positions and learn from them and debaters would tell you before round about triggering positions that you've read before. Independent voter because inclusion is a gateway issue for debate to occur in the first place2~ Prep Skew- Pre-round disclosure can't happen if you don't have a preferable means of contact because I would never know the aff. Cross apply reasons prep skew outweighs.They'll say they contacted us but that's only because we had contact info and if they didn't reach out no disclosure would have ever happened. | 9/18/21 |
1 - G - Greenhill DisclosureTournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Tom Evnen Interpretation: At greenhill, debaters must disclose all constructive speech docs open source with highlighting on the NDCA LD wiki by the tech-check or 15 minutes before the next round start.Violation: Their aff wiki is empty – timestamp is 2:55 central, 5 mins before round
Prefer on the tourney inviteTimmons and Powell 21 Three impactsA~ Risk of losing MPJs causes debates that are skewed to argument bias,B~ I shouldn't have to ask pre-round because it was an apriori obligation to competeC~ Pre-round prep – disclosure causes better better engagement which o/ws because prep is key to make clash effectiveFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because each debater assumes the judge fairly evaluates their arguments.Drop the debater – a~ it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm. b~ we didn't read this against an argument.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs on 1AC theory – a~ it gives the 1NC 7 minutes to dump on the shell which the 4 minute 1AR cannot come back from, b~ it encourages the 1NC to go all in on theory which leads to maximal substance crowdout, c~ 1AR is too short to win theory and substance so 1AC theory has to be no riskEvaluate disclosure before 1NC theory – a) scope of norming – , b) magnitude – pre-round prep and disclosure affects a larger portion of the debate since it determines every speech after it and pre round neg prep | 9/18/21 |
1 - G - Neg must read an advocacy theoryTournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland AB | Judge: JP Stuckert | 9/11/21 |
1 - G - Nibs BadTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Andrew Kim | Judge: Andres Shaw | 9/14/21 |
1 - G - Skep SpecTournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Andrew Kim | Judge: Andres Shaw | 9/14/21 |
1 - G - Spec StatusTournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: Tom Evnen Extemp | 9/18/21 |
1 - G - Straight Refs Bad theoryTournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland AB | Judge: JP Stuckert | 9/11/21 |
2 - SO - Biopiracy ACTournament: Patterson | Round: Octas | Opponent: Cabot AC | Judge: Panel 1AC – FrameworkThe value is morality as ought denotes a moral obligation.The litmus test for ethics is certainty and non-arbitrariness – blurry guidelines for ethics allows agents to inconsistently understand morality or arbitrarily opt out which renders ethics useless since it can't serve as a guide to action.Thus, the meta-ethic is practical reason.1~ Empirical Uncertainty – only intrinsic and a priori truths like 1+12 are certain for agents – relying on the empirics is incoherent because different agents have different interpretations.==== 2~ Solipsism – contingent circumstances such as utility are uncertain – I can never know what another agents feels or thinks which means its nonverifiable but practical reason is universal and applies to all agents. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same.3~ Infinite Regress – certainty must answer "why" because it would otherwise allow agents to infinitely question why it's true – other frameworks allow agents to question every part of it, but questioning reason concedes its authority which proves its inescapable.Practical reason is universalizable – its incoherent to claim that 1+12 for me, but not for everyone else. ==== Thus, the value criterion is consistency with universalizable maxims – only intentions matter.Prefer Additionally –1~ Performativity – when you enter debate, you presume that you will be free in round because of reciprocally enforced constraints which means objections are impossible and should be ignored on face.2~ Ideal Theory Good – a~ Sequencing – we need an ideal world to envision to work towards so only ideal theory can guide action b~ Relativity Problem – We can't assign universal obligation since non-ideal theory commits us to understanding individual circumstances which is radically different for each person3~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth—that means we must treat others as ends in themselves.Korsgaard '83 (Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS 4~ The Kantian subject is the opposite of abstract and embraces an embodied subject—universalizability is essential to mutual recognition of others.Farr 1 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. 1AC – ContentionResolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines originating from living organisms and biological or living processes. Spec in doc.Actor – member nations of the World Trade Organization – https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm 1~ Put away theft turns – biopiracy is stealing.Khor 3 ~Martin Khor (director of the Third World Network — a non-profit international network that researches, publishes on, and organises events about issues relating to development — which is based in Malaysia). Why we must fight biopiracy". SciDev. 23/04/03. Accessed 8/26/21. https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/why-we-must-fight-biopiracy/ Xu + duongie~ 2~ Biopiracy patents indigenous peoples which treats them as means to an end – that's the worst impact since it literally treats tissue and blood samples as a mere means since they don't get financial reparations.Stenton 03 ~Gavin Stenton (dual-qualified solicitor and chartered trade mark attorney, co-head of the firm's fashion and luxury brands group and a member of MARQUES' international trademark law and practice team and the Bucharest Bar Association). "Biopiracy within the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Stark Illustration of how Abusive, Manipulative and Perverse the Patenting Process can be towards Countries of the South." Intellectual Property Law (LW556) Dissertation. 2002/2003. Accessed 8/27/21. https://studylib.net/doc/7759695/a-stark-illustration-of-how-abusive—manipulative Xu+Elmer~ 1AC – AdvantageThe Advantage is BioD –1~ Brazil – pharmaceutical biopiracy causes environmental exploitation, deforestation, and illegal trafficking – it's 20 of Earth's total.Danley 12 ~Vanessa Danley (LL.M., University of Oregon School of Law). "Biopiracy in the Brazilian Amazon: Learning from International and Comparative Law Successes and Shortcomings to Help Promote Biodiversity Conservation in Brazil". Florida A and M University Law Review. Spring 2012. Accessed 8/27/21. https://commons.law.famu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065andcontext=famulawreview Xu~ 2~ India – TK is the source and only sustainable facilitators but bio-pirated IP degrades a global biod center.Sharma et al 18 ~Bhavika Sharma (Department of Environment, Chandigarh Administration), Shalini Singh Maurya (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), and Brahmacharimayum Jesmita Devi (Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute). "India's Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants' Biopiracy: Its Implications on Food Security, Traditional Rights and Knowledge Degradation". International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. December 2018. Accessed 8/27/21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330903124_India's_Fight_Against_Agricultural_and_Medicinal_Plants'_Biopiracy_Its_Implications_on_Food_Security_Traditional_Rights_and_Knowledge_Degradation Xu~ 3~ Sri Lanka – meta-analysis proves medicinal biopiracy causes BioD loss but is invisibilized by Big Pharma.Imran et al 2/19 ~Yoonus Imran, Nalaka Wijekoon, Lakmal Gonawala, (Interdisciplinary Centre for Innovation in Biotechnology and Neuroscience, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka) and Yu-Chung Chiang (Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan), and K. Ranil D. De Silva. "Biopiracy: Abolish Corporate Hijacking of Indigenous Medicinal Entities". The Scientific World Journal. Published 19 February 2021. Accessed 8/27/2021. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2021/8898842/ Xu~ BioD is on the brink, unpredictable, and causes food insecurity.Niranjan 19 ~Ajit Niranjan (environment and globalization reporter in Berlin). "Why biodiversity loss hurts humans as much as climate change". Alumniportal Deutschland. May 2019. Accessed 8/27/21. https://www.alumniportal-deutschland.org/en/global-goals/sdg-15-terrestrial-ecosystems/loss-of-biodiversity-and-its-consequences/ Xu~ Causes destabilization, global draw-in, and nuclear war.DeFeo 17 ~Michael DeFeo (graduated in 2019 with a Bachelors degree in Political Science from Gettysburg College). "Food Insecurity and the Threat to Global Stability and Security in the 21st Century". Inquiries Journal. VOL. 9 NO. 12. 2017. Accessed 8/27/21. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1712/food-insecurity-and-the-threat-to-global-stability-and-security-in-the-21st-century Xu~ Extinction.PND 16. internally citing Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council of Foreign Relations and former national security adviser to President Carter, Toon and Robock's 2012 study on nuclear winter in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Gareth Evans' International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Report, Congressional EMP studies, studies on nuclear winter by Seth Baum of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and Martin Hellman of Stanford University, and U.S. and Russian former Defense Secretaries and former heads of nuclear missile forces, brief submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear risks. A/AC.286/NGO/13. 05-03-2016. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/OEWG/2016/Documents/NGO13.pdf Re-cut by Elmer Plan solves – IPRs are the key facilitator of biopiracy BUT challenging patenting is reverse causal.Mehta 8 ~Harish Mehta (reporter for the IATP. "New recruits in the battle against biopirates". Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy. Feb 7, 2008. Accessed 8/25/21. https://www.iatp.org/news/new-recruits-in-the-battle-against-biopirates Xu+Elmer~ Reject Negative Turns – there is a distinction between bioprospecting and biopiracy – the Plan shifts to bioprospecting which is good.Mackey and Lian 12 Mackey, Tim K., and Bryan A. Liang. "Integrating biodiversity management and indigenous biopiracy protection to promote environmental justice and global health." American journal of public health 102.6 (2012): 1091-1095. (Associate Professor at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine)Elmer | 11/17/21 |
2 - SO - Bioterror ACTournament: Patterson | Round: 2 | Opponent: Broken Arrow JM | Judge: Taj 1AC: ADVThe Advantage is Bioterrorism:International Patent Laws are insufficient in the event of bioterrorism – compensation disputes and vague legal language cause massive delays in status quo compulsory licensing.Mullowney and Harris 13 Mullowney, J., and Harris, N. (2013). Patent Protectability or Public Health?—An Examination of the Patent Compulsory License and Bioterrorism. Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law, 4(1). doi:10.1515/jbbbl-2012-0011 sid Compulsory Licensing clause in the TRIPS Act hurts Bioterrorism response:1~ Definitional and Interpretational ProblemsOriola 1, Taiwo A. "Against the Plague: Exemption of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights as a Biosecurity Strategy." U. Ill. JL Tech. and Pol'y (2007): 287. (Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Derby Law School)Elmer 2~ Lobbyists and Interest Groups – they deter usage of Compulsory Licensing under conditional clauses by exploitation bureaucratic red tape.Oriola 2, Taiwo A. "Against the Plague: Exemption of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights as a Biosecurity Strategy." U. Ill. JL Tech. and Pol'y (2007): 287. (Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Derby Law School)Elmer Bioterrorism is coming now – four warrants:1~ Terrorist groups are looking for capabilities.Dass 21 Reuben Ananthan Santhana Dass March 2021 "Bioterrorism: Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses" Jstor (Research Analyst with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research)Elmer 2~ Lab diseases have historically had existential potential – new technology amplifies those risks.Wan 20 Christopher Wan 3-25-2020 "Synthetic Biology and Existential Risk: A COVID-19 Thought Experiment" https://medium.com/@chrisxwan/synthetic-biology-and-existential-risk-a-covid-19-thought-experiment-216d575271f1 (Law and Business at Stanford University)Elmer 3~ Dual use tech, DIY science, the internet, and expiring patent terms expand access to terrorist organizations.Million-Perez, H. (2016). Addressing duel-use technology in an age of bioterrorism: Patent extensions to inspire companies making duel use technology to create accompanying countermeasures. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 44(3), 387-436. Rachael Million-Perez is an associate with Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper and Scinto and a graduate of the George Washington University Law School. sid 4~ It's uniquely feasible now – reject outdated defense – bio-engineering overcomes every obstacle.Patel and D'Souza 20 Trushar R. Patel and Michael Hilary D'Souza 5-18-2020 "Coronavirus is not a bioweapon — but bioterrorism is a real future threat" (Trushar R. Patel receives funding from the Canada Research Chair Program. Michael Hilary D'Souza receives funding from Canada Research Chair Program in conjunction with Trushar Patel. Partners)Elmer Bioterrorism causes Extinction – overcomes any conventional defense.Walsh 19, Bryan. End Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World. Hachette Books, 2019. (Future Correspondent for Axios, Editor of the Science and Technology Publication OneZero, Former Senior and International Editor at Time Magazine, BA from Princeton University)Elmer Uncertainty of capabilities is not defense but reason to prefer a focus on preventing Bioterrorism – there's a 50 chance the next attack is existential.Millett and Beattie 17, Piers, and Andrew Snyder-Beattie. "Existential risk and cost-effective biosecurity." Health security 15.4 (2017): 373-383. (Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, where he focuses on pandemic and deliberate disease)Elmer 1AC: PlanText: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines by implementing an unconditional bio-terrorism-specific pharmaceutical patent appropriation clause.Modify it to clarify vagueness concerns Here are the conditions in which the Aff is triggeredResnik 4 David B. Resnik May 2004 "Terrorism and Intellectual Property Rights" https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/terrorism-and-intellectual-property-rights/2004-05 (an American bioethicist who works at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)Elmer 1AC: FWThe standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer –1~ Naturalism – Only material realities are epistemically accessiblePapineau '07 Pleasure is an intrinsic good—solves regress.Moen '16 – (Ole Martin, PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Oslo, "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267). Modified for glang Outweighs –A~ Other FWs rely on long questionable claims that make them less likely. Only util is epistemically accessible. 2~ States must use util – they seek practical benefits for constituents and aren't unified agents so they don't have intentions. No calc indicts since states use util successfully all the time and they just prove util's hard to use not impossible.3~ Death outweighs – agents can't act ethically if they fear bodily harm – turns NCs4~ Extinction comes first under any framing – future value, magnitude, risk parityPummer 15 Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015 AT, recut BWSEK 5~ Consequentialism true –A~ No intent-foresight distinction – when I foresee something it enters into my intention | 10/9/21 |
2 - SO - Note for AffsTournament: Greenhill | Round: 9 | Opponent: asf | Judge: gdsa | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/11/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/12/21 | danxu2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/14/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/14/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/10/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/10/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | sebastiancho2004@gmailcom |
|