Lexington Ghosh Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Harrison JC | Annie Wang |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | McNeil AG | Favian Sun |
|
|
| |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 1 | Wheel of Cannibalism Spundan Kapoor | Tej Gedela |
|
|
| |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 3 | LaRPeRs Pranav Kaginele | Jonathan Jeong |
|
|
| |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 4 | LaRPeRs Christian Han | Samantha McLoughlin |
|
|
| |
| gradtinggatangn | Finals | your mom | me |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Annie Wang AC- racial cap |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun ac- biopiracy |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Wheel of Cannibalism Spundan Kapoor | Judge: Tej Gedela ac- space mining |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 3 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Pranav Kaginele | Judge: Jonathan Jeong AC- Cybernetics |
| TDI Camp Tournament | 4 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Christian Han | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin AC- Space Mining |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0- ContactTournament: gradtinggatangn | Round: Finals | Opponent: your mom | Judge: me | 9/11/21 |
0- Disclosure NoteTournament: gradtinggatangn | Round: Finals | Opponent: your mom | Judge: me Grapevine R1- CP- Direct Support | 9/11/21 |
1- 1AR Theory HedgeTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun Reject new 1AR ROTBs –1. Infinite abuse – Reading a new ROB in the 1AR makes it so all you have to do is dump on the 1N ROB and marginally extend your warrants in the 2ar and the neg can’t do anything about it since there is no 3NR to answer the 2ar weighing or extrapolations, you already have conceded offense, all you need is the ROB.2. Reciprocity – (a) restarting the ROB debate in the 1ar puts you at a 7-6 advantage on the framing debate since I have to propose one in the 1N since 2N arguments are new – putting it in the aff makes it 13-13 (b) you have one more speech to contest my ROB and weigh, I can only possibly answer your ROB in the 2n but you can do comparative weighing in the 2ar (c) I can only read a ROB in the 1N so you should read it in your first speech as well – that’s definitionally an equal burden. Eval debate after 1nc k2 reciprocity. 3. Neg definition choice – The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, 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.And, reject 1AR Theory: a~ double bind – Either you auto accept all responses to 2NR standards and they auto win since I can't respond, or you intervene to give 2AR credence. They’ll say it’s inevitable but it’s a sliding scale. Inevitable resolvability or intervention collapses to reasonability – which allows for substance ed and friv theory with no counter interp offense b~ infinite abuse in the context of aff abuse doesn’t make sense since you can read 1ac theory and uplayer with other 1ar offs like Ks and it’s not infinite we only have 7 mins c~ 7-6, 2-1 skew proves its always skewed to the aff d~ they can blow up dropped arguments in the next speech and I don’t have the chance to frame them out but they can which means only dropped arguments for them are game over – turns infinite abuse. Drop the argument and RVIs on 1ar theory – a~ they can initiate offensive drop the debater theory in the aff and in the 1ar while no judge would vote on 2n theory on severance B~ 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – outweighs on quantifiability. Reject new 1AR paradigm issues – they have 1 more speech than me on theory so they can go for them in multiple - the 1NC paradigm issues respond to 1ac paradigm issues in mind so new ones moot theoretical offense. | 9/12/21 |
1- NC- SkepTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun Presumption and permissibility negates – a) statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted c) the aff has to prove an obligation which means lack of that obligation negates d) resolved in the resolution indicates they proactively did something, to negate that means that they aren’t resolved.And, either it’s the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there’s no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other’s actions, and will cancel out the obligations.And, in order to discover something, it must not be known, but in order to know to discover something, it must already be known – this makes the quest for knowledge incomprehensible and thus impossibleSkep is true and negates –Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa But justice, however unpresentable it may be, doesn't wait.· It is that which must not wait. To be direct, simple and brief, let us say this: a just decision is always required immediately, "right away." It cannot furnish itself with infinite information and the unlimited knowledge of conditions, rules or hypothetical imperatives that could justify it. And even if it did have all that at its disposal, even if it did give itself the time, all the time and all the necessary facts about the matter, the moment of decision, as such, always remains a finite moment of urgency and precipitation, since it must not be the consequence or the effect of this theoretical or historical knowledge, of this reflection or this deliberation, since it always marks the interruption of the juridico- or ethico- or politico-cognitive deliberation that precedes it, that must precede it. The instant of decision is a madness, says Kierkegaard. This is particularly true of the instant of the just decision that must rend time and defy dialectics. It is a madness. Even if time and prudence, the patience of knowledge and the mastery of conditions were hypothetically unlimited, the decision would be structurally finite, however late it came, decision of urgency and precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule Affirming negates.Paraphrasing Mcnamara ‘06, Paul, 2-7-2006, "Deontic Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," No Publication, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/index.html~~#4.3 Massa Premise 1—If the aff is true, it ought to be the case that members of the WTO should reduce IP protections.Premise 2—It ought to be the case that the WTO reduce IP protections if and only if the members have IP protections. This is because standard logic would necessitate transferring the obligation predicate onto its necessary condition.Thus, premise 3—if the aff is true, it ought to be the case that the members of the WTO has IP protections. This logically follows from "if P is Q and P is Q only if N, then N."External world skep is true.Neta, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. And, any account of morality is regressive since it predicates one universal rule on the existence of another moral rule. Since every human chain of reasoning must be finite according to our finite nature, such a reasoning process must terminate in a rule for which no reason can be given. | 9/12/21 |
1- ROB- Truth TestingTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc and exacerbates the fact that they speak first and last since I should be able to compensate by choosing – it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins.Reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare.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 which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional.Their framing justifies permissibility since it only tells you what to do in face of one problem which means everything outside that instance isn’t condemned. | 9/12/21 |
Camp- K- DualismTournament: TDI Camp Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Wheel of Cannibalism Spundan Kapoor | Judge: Tej Gedela The aff is not a break from dualistic thinking but reifies it. Appeals to space as being the dominion of all humankind, free to explore for the benefit of our common heritage, promote an image of humanity unburdened by its material environment.Ferrando 16 ~(Francesca, Ph.D. in philosophy, M.A. in Gender Studies, Professor.@ NYU) "Why Space Migration Must Be Posthuman", 2016, http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/76546/1/147.pdf.pdf~~#page=136yperlink~~ TDI AND been opened and expanded: posthumanism has entered the gates to the heavens. Their view of "junk" as a threat to techno-capital expansion is an attempt to bury their co-constitutive ecology. It is only the image of the objects of our accumulation remaining to haunt us.Ivakhiv 18 ~(Adrian, Professor of Environmental Thought and Culture at the University of Vermont) Shadowing the Anthropocene: Eco-Realism for Turbulent Times, 2018~ TDI AND the "thing-ism," about as far as it can go. The impact is a state of permanent war—their political discourses surrounding space make militarization inevitable and turns the case.Dickens and Ormrod 16 ~(Peter Dickens, Senior Research Associate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, member of the Red-Green Study Group in London, James S Ormrod, Principal Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Brighton), "The Future of Outer Space", The Palgrave Handbook of Society, Culture and Outer Space~ TDI AND the possibilities (and limits) of military technology’ (p. 81). Viewing humanity as distinct from and in relation to "nature" is inherently violent – concerns about purity and contamination spill into violent discourses of race, sexuality, and immigration that culminate in eugenics.Carroll 18 ~(Myles, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario), "Narrating technonatures: discourses of biotechnology in a neoliberal era", Journal of Political Ecology, Volume 25 Issue 1,2018, https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2078/ AND I will now examine these good sense approaches to anti-GMO activism. The alternative is to see that nature is us—recognizing the logic of the 1AC as the primary barrier to overcoming challenges to our environment and beyond.Baskin 15 ~(Jeremy, Senior Fellow at the Melbourne School of Government where he focuses on the legitimacy and accountability of knowledge) Paradigm Dressed as Epoch: The Ideology of the Anthropocene, 2015, Environmental Values~ TDI AND data or new technologies (see Pielke, 2007: 71–2). The alt is a prerequisite – the consequences and ethics of laws concerning space cannot be divorced from the language that produces them.Ferrando 16 ~(Francesca, Ph.D. in philosophy, M.A. in Gender Studies, Professor.@ NYU) "Why Space Migration Must Be Posthuman", 2016, http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/76546/1/147.pdf.pdf~~#page=136yperlink~~ TDI AND
| 7/29/21 |
Camp- K- Dualism v2Tournament: TDI Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Pranav Kaginele | Judge: Jonathan Jeong | 7/29/21 |
Camp- PIC- India SoPoTournament: TDI Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Pranav Kaginele | Judge: Jonathan Jeong | 7/29/21 |
Camp- T- AppropriationTournament: TDI Camp Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Christian Han | Judge: Samantha McLoughlin T comes before the KInterpretation:"Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space.TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ AND the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219 Private appropriation of extracted space resources is distinct from appropriation "of" outer space. Despite longstanding permission of appropriation of extracted resources, sovereign claims are still universally prohibited.Abigail D. Pershing, J.D. Candidate @ Yale, B.A. UChicago,’19, "Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today," Yale Journal of International Law 44, no. 1 AND -out allowing appropriation of space resources once such resources have been extracted. our cards are just better, more recent with spec examples and IL chains-Violation: They do1~ Limits—their interpretation means that affs about any outer space activity would be topical: tourism, photography, sending rovers, collecting ice cores, launching satellites, deflecting debris, can’t sell rocks on EBAY, etc. This explodes neg prep burdens since outer space activity is so vague – no generics exist to answer both the photography and the rovers aff, so affs would just win with a tiny impact every round.2~ Ground— allowing debates about extracting any space resource denies the neg links to core generics like space democracy bad, space colonization good, the moon pic, the property rights NC, etc. – that kills clash by forcing negatives to the fringes of argumentation that disagree with everything and kills fairness by giving the aff a major prep advantage since they only need to frontline the few negative arguments that link to their aff.Precision outweighs—determines what we prepare for which controls the internal link to any pragmatic benefits of the activityDTD- case affects every layer of the flow and what offs I read, kicking the aff is impossible for debate – has to be about the topic, time skewCI- race to bottom, collapses, intervention, yours vs bestFairness – arg presumes fairnessEdu- funded by educational spacesNo RVI’s – illogical, baiting | 7/30/21 |
Camp- T- FrameworkTournament: TDI Camp Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: LaRPeRs Pranav Kaginele | Judge: Jonathan Jeong | 7/29/21 |
SO- K- PsychoTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Annie Wang Legal processes to curtail IPR become embroiled in the death drive as they replicate the father-son relationship. Sween 09Gretchen S. Sween, Who's Your Daddy? A Psychoanalytic Exegesis of the Supreme Court's Recent Patent Jurisprudence, 7 Nw. J. Tech. and Intell. Prop. 204 (2009). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol7/iss2/4//Aanya AND legal issue, the infringement claim against them was dismissed.103 ¶43 Anticapitalist struggles attempt to remove the limits of capitalism to reach a utopian society in which the forces of production experience no constraints - the impact is lashouts and it just reproduces capitalism.McGowan 16 - Todd McGowan is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Vermont, 2016 ~"Capitalism and Desire: The Psychic Cost of Free Markets", Columbia Press New York, pages 19-34~ rpg AND identity is yet another limit that capitalism itself aims to overcome and does. The 1AC’s demand to be recognized as a form of political dissent is an investment in the hegemonic order – the power of demand stems from the authority of the system. Their failure to theorize desire turns the 1AC into a moment of jouissance that betrays their radical intentions in order to maintain the possibility of protest. The 1nc is a no to the affirmative and disrupts the agential fantasy in favor of reinvesting desire in light of the death drive.Lundberg ’12 (Christian, Associate Prof. of Rhetoric @ UNC Chapel Hill, "On Being Bound to Equivalental Chains," Cultural Studies, Volume 26, Issue 2-3, 2012) AND should produce a re-evaluation of the economy of demand and desire. The external impact is a resentful and reactive form of subjectivity that authorizes mass violence, individuals are distanced from the genuine self-affirmation of enacting change by the logic of demandAlcorn 2 (Marshall W. Jr., George Washington University, Changing the Subject in English Class: Discourse and the Constructions of Desire, p. 51-3)LA *We don’t endorse ableist language. AND which the free transmission of expressed desire is not only possible but privileged. The aff’s presentation of suffering creates a marketplace of trauma, transforming wounds into a commodity for western consumption. Their fantasy of change through investment in the law shields criticism and guises violence.Berlant ‘99 (Lauren, George M. Pullman Professor, Department of English, University of Chicago, "The Subject of True Feeling: Pain, Privacy and Politics" in Cultural Pluralism, Identity Politics and the Law ed. Sarat and Kearns, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Pg. 49-54/ Ravaged wages and ravaged bodies … for sustaining the hegemonic field.9) AND prophylactic shields, as ethically uncontestable legitimating devices for sustaining the hegemonic field. The alternative is to embrace the death drive – only a society re-founded around enjoyment can create the conditions for political transformationMcGowan ’13 (Todd, Associate Prof. of Arts and Sciences @ U. of Vermont, "Enjoying What We Don’t Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis," University of Nebraska Press, July, 2013, pp. 283-286) AND recognize that we enjoy the lost object only insofar as it remains lost. | 9/11/21 |
SO- NC- KantTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Annie Wang FrameworkThe meta-ethic is procedural moral realism - substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be, this means experience may be generally useful but should not be the basis for ethical action.Practical Reason is that procedure. To ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding.Moral law must be universal—any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with liberty. To clarify, consequences don’t link to the framework.Freedom justifies property rights – which is conceptual and centered aroundPrefer –1~ 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.1~ Patents protect private companies.Na 19 ~Blake Na, "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry", Chicago-Kent | Journal of Intellectual Property, 4-19-2019, https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/protecting-intellectual-property-rights-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, accessed: 8-24-2021.~ Lex VM AND , pharmaceutical companies often face difficulty with the high costs and uncertainty of litigation That negates – A~ Promise breaking – states promised legally binding IP protections to companies who might not have otherwise developed medicines – the aff is a unilateral violation of that contract. B~ That’s a form of restricting the free economic choices of individuals.2~ IP is a reflection of our will and a form of property.Merges 11 ~Merges, Robert P. "Will and Object in the World of IP." Justifying Intellectual Property, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 76-78. ISBN: 0674049489,9780674049482. Found on Libgen.~ Lex VM AND very abstract for Kant, and can of course therefore include IPRs.35 3~ Neg contention choice – otherwise they can concede all of our work on framework and just read 4 minutes of turns which moots the four minutes of framework debate that the 1NC did giving them a massive advantage and limits phil debate. | 9/11/21 |
SO- NC- LogicTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun Negate –1~ member is "a part or organ of the body, especially a limb" but an organ can’t have obligations2~ 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. | 9/12/21 |
SO- PIC- NativesTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun CP text: The member nations of the world trade organization should—-eliminate patent protections except for indigenous patents.—-establish an international legal instrument to protect indigenous intellectual propertyThat is in line with indigenous demands.WIPO no date WIPO, xx-xx-xxxx, "Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property – Background Brief," No Publication, https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk'ip.html?fbclid=IwAR2iLd8fJ4lNl'fhhwQBHvCdoFEfB44H5GHIWBBb0xGPVBt1fRJT-uzUXDU SJDA AND convene a diplomatic conference for final adoption of one or more international instruments. Preserving native sovereignty is key to cultural diversity and preserves global survivalBarsh 93 Russel Lawrence Barsh 1993 "Native American Sovereignty" University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Winter, 1993, 25 U. MICH. J. L. REF. 671 (Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge)Elmer AND so. There is no alternative for Indian survival or for global survival. | 9/12/21 |
SO- T- Extra v2Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun Interp – the aff must only defend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Violation – they're extra topical – they fiat restrictions on to reduce IPP to the point that discoverable biological elements are not patentable, even for medicines- read the ev and hold the line- either they doVote neg for limits: extra-topicality allows them to tack on infinite planks to artificially improve aff solvency and spike out of DAs. Even if this specific instance of extra-t wasn't very abusive the counter-interp sets a precedent that the scope of aff fiat doesn't have to be bounded by the resolution, which outweighs on magnitude. There are tons of authors who call for doing various things with IPR which isn't bounded by the resolution.D~ Voter:Fairness and education are voters – debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking.Drop the debater – a) they have a 7-6 rebuttal advantage and the 2ar to make args I can’t respond to, b) it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm.Use competing interps – a) reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention since we don’t know your bs meter, b) collapses to competing interps – we justify 2 brightlines under an offense defense paradigm just like 2 interps.No RVIs – a) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair – it’s a litmus test for engaging in substance, b) norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR | 9/12/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/11/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/12/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/29/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/29/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/30/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
|