Lexington Ghosh Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duke Invitational | 5 | Neenah IH | Srinath Alapati |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | 4 | Durham AA | Callie Ham |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | 1 | Atlee EK | X Braithwaite |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Harrison JC | Annie Wang |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | McNeil AG | Favian Sun |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | Triples | Strake Jesuit JS | Favian Sun |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 1 | Coppell RM | Chris Castillo |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | American Heritage Broward Jessica Wong | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Strake Jesuit JS | Ian Matuszeski |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Northern Valley HS Independent James Song | Phoenix Pittman |
|
|
| |
| 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 |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational | 2 | Mission San Jose SR | Animesh Joshi |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational | 4 | Millburn AK | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational | 5 | Byram Hills SH | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| gradtinggatangn | Finals | your mom | me |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Duke Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Neenah IH | Judge: Srinath Alapati ac- structural violence education adv native adv |
| Duke Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Durham AA | Judge: Callie Ham ac- covid |
| Duke Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Atlee EK | Judge: X Braithwaite ac- vaccine inequality |
| Grapevine Classic | 4 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Annie Wang AC- racial cap |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Favian Sun ac- biopiracy |
| Grapevine Classic | Triples | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Favian Sun ac- korsgaard |
| Grapevine Classic | 1 | Opponent: Coppell RM | Judge: Chris Castillo AC- Cap |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Jessica Wong | Judge: Tajaih Robinson ac- ethical reciprocity |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Ian Matuszeski ac- kant |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Northern Valley HS Independent James Song | Judge: Phoenix Pittman ac- burdens |
| 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 |
| Yale University Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Animesh Joshi ac- virtue ethics |
| Yale University Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Millburn AK | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis ac- korsgaard |
| Yale University Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills SH | Judge: Tajaih Robinson ac- model minority |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0- ContactTournament: gradtinggatangn | Round: Finals | Opponent: your mom | Judge: me | 9/29/21 |
0- Disclosure NoteTournament: gradtinggatangn | Round: Finals | Opponent: your mom | Judge: me Grapevine R1- SO- CP- Direct Support | 9/29/21 |
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- 1AR Theory Hedge v2Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Favian Sun 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. | 9/13/21 |
1- K- Beautiful Brown Girl vs Model MinorityTournament: Yale University Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills SH | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Counter-Performance- Rupi KaurMy issue with what they consider beautiful is their concept of beauty centers around excluding people
I find hair beautiful,when a woman wears it like a garden on her skin
that is the definition of beauty,
big hooked noses
pointing upward to the skylike they’re rising to the occasionskin the color of earth.Beautiful brown girl,your thick hair is a mint coat not all can afford.Beautiful brown girlyour skin can’t help carrying as much sun as possibleI know you hate the hyperpigmentationbut you are a magnet for the light
carrying as much sun as possibleunibrow- the bridging of two worldsvagina-so much darker than the rest of you
cause it is trying to hide a gold mine
you will have dark circles too early-appreciate the halos
beautiful brown girlyou pull god out of their bellies.The 1AC is an attempt to project the ethnic garb in which it appears as the ONLY image of the Model Minority – South Asian American identity is neglected and disarticulated within the praxis of the 1AC, which promotes a politics that fetishizes redeemable aspects of browness like Buddhism but refuses the brown body as an area of study. Reject their tokenized exclusion of South Asians in favor of inserting brownpresence into the debate space as a way of rupturing Western narratives of identity and Asianness.Dayal, Samir. 1998. "Min(d)ing the Gap: South Asian Americans and Diaspora." In A Part Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America, edited by Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press./NV AND modestly as an occasion to rethink the articulation of Asian-America itself." Your scholarship doesn’t take into account how South Asians fit into the racial schema of the United States – we can’t be placed into white categories of race thus rendering us invisible in both your theory and methodKibria, Nazli. 1998. "The Racial Gap: South Asian American Identity and the Asian American Movement." In A Part Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America, edited by Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press./NV AND identity, one is in danger of having no identity" (62)." The 1AC is an example of strategic essentialism – they utilize the political nomenclature of "Asian American" as a signifier of specific ethnographic characteristics. This essentializes the Asian American experience and forces South Asians to compete with other Asians for representation, which reifies the "divide and conquer strategy" of Western imperialism – functions as an indict to their method and a DA to the permutationShankar, Lavina Dhingra. 1998. "The Limits of (South Asian) Names and Labels: Postcolonial or Asian American?" In A Part Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America, edited by Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press./NV AND older than the birth of the United States of America itself? 14" The term "Asian American" is rooted in phenotypical traits that exclude South Asian’s physical and cultural dissimilarities. Their continued usage of this term as a mechanism of self-identification perpetuates the drawing of new boundaries of who is or isn’t Asian American around these phenotypes which delineate the Asian American as disparate from the brown body.Kibria, Nazli. 1998. "The Racial Gap: South Asian American Identity and the Asian American Movement." In A Part Yet Apart: South Asians in Asian America, edited by Lavina Dhingra Shankar and Rajini Srikanth. Philadelphia: Temple University Press./NV AND , forms the bedrock upon "which our categories of cultural groups rest." The browning of bodies is a performative process that reifies characteristics of deviancy and danger, which replicates itself in our discussions of South Asian-ness within the context of Model Minority scholarship. Browner Asians are distanced from "Asian-Americanness" due to their perceived performance of deviancy. The impact is that the brown body is perpetually articulated as a security threat to both the nation and to staticized Asian American identity that functions as the basis for the politics of the 1AC. Therefore the ROB is to signal an ethical orientation to the 1AC.Patel, G. Tina "Surveillance, Suspicion and Stigma: Brown Bodies in a Terror-Panic Climate" 2012 ~https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/stigma/4570~~/NV AND as outsiders. This allows for a wider casting of the surveillance net. Thus, vote negative to affirm the poetics of diasporic performance. Instead of having our analysis of Asian-ness always start from the homogenized lens of the Model Minority, we endorse a performative re-articulation of Asian identity which rejects the trap of pandiasporization and articulates the specific embodied experiences of each diasporic subject in order to create spaces antithetical to dominant discursive norms. Our diaspora constitutes a new stage on which South Asian communities actively contest hegemonic diaspora narratives of Asianess while simultaneously performatively interrogating our own positionalities as an attempt to shift status quo communal consciousness over Asian diaspora.Farah, Laila. "Dancing on the Hyphen: Performing Diasporic Subjectivity." Modern Drama, vol. 48 no. 2, 2005, pp. 316-345. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/mdr.2005.0025/NV AND special ones, the star-crossed ones …(I sit down agitatedly. | 9/18/21 |
1- K- Queer PessimismTournament: Duke Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Atlee EK | Judge: X Braithwaite Two forces define reality: The Real and the Symbolic. The ever-present gap between the Symbolic, composed of signifiers, and the Real creates lack. In order to fill this lack, politics attempts to capture the Real via the fantasy of the Child, an endless drive for an impossible future which is inaccessible to queer people trapping them in the fantasy.Baedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan Lex AKo™ AND the triumph of capital over the dead. The future is a horizon d The result is queer overkill: Liberal democracy creates a category of human that structurally excludes the queer, who represent nothing, the antithesis of such democracy. Antiqueer violence manifests itself in the form of violence to end all queer life, a death beyond death.Stanley 11: (assistant professor in the Department of Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of California) https://queerhistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/near-life-queer-death-eric-stanley.pdf Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture. Social Text 107. Vol, 29, No. 2. Duke University Press. Eric Stanley. AQ. Accessed 11/05/18. AND , what it must mean, to do violence to what is nothing. The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that provides the best method of traversing the symbolic of the fantasy to escape desire from lack projects which create identity based on the child to justify anti queernessBaedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan Lex AKo™ AND exploits us, but also against everything that produces us as we are. The political relies on this negation in order to sustain itself which forces any sign of deviancy to a position of ontological damnation where queerness is condemned to overkill.Stanley 11 (Eric Stanley; assistant professor in the Department of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Californiai ; Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 8-10) SJCPJG AND , what it must mean, to do violence to what is nothing. The alternative is a strategy of the masses, the weaponization of queerness to turn the death drive on its head and kill the Child accepting present destruction than future annihilationBaedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan Lex AKo™ AND this willingness to insist intransitively—to insist that the future stops here. The alternative traverses the fantasy by queering the world. Zimmerman 17Amy Zimmerman, entertainment reporter, 4-13-2017, "Frank Ocean’s LGBT Masterpiece: The Radical Queerness of ‘Blonde’," Daily Beast, https://www.thedailybeast.com/frank-oceans-lgbt-masterpiece-the-radical-queerness-of-blonde, 1-15-2021Aanya AND Ocean’s bent masterpiece brings under-represented modes of desire to the mainstream. | 10/3/21 |
1- Multiple Shells BadTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | Judge: Favian Sun | 9/13/21 |
1- NC- PPTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JS | 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) resolved in the resolution indicates they proactively did something, to negate that means that they aren’t resolved e) to negate means to deny the truth of which means if the aff is false you vote neg. | 9/13/21 |
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- NC- UtilTournament: Yale University Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Animesh Joshi Thus, the meta-ethic is substantive moral naturalism. Prefer – Bottom of Form~1~ Empiricism – naturalism is the only objective way to derive experiences for normative values based on the real world around us~2~ All other theories collapse – epistemological guidance is predisposed with a physical cognitive capacity to act which is reliant on the natural world.The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Prefer –~1~ Actor specificity – Governments must aggregate with util because their policies benefit some and harm others so side constraints freeze state action. Actor spec comes first – different agents have different ethical standings – takes out calc indicts because it proves the fwrk is empirically used.~2~ Ground – Both debaters have ground to engage under util – Aff gets plans, while Neg gets DAs and counterplans. AND anything can function under util if it has an external benefit. Other fwrks deny 1 side engagement on link and impact level. TJFs outweigh because concerns fairness – outweighs all args concede valid of fairness.~3~ Consequentialism is true and a side constraint to ethics – ~A~ All actions are forward-looking, so intentions are constituted by foreseen consequences. ~B~ Moral substitutability – If I ought to mow the lawn, then I ought to turn on the lawnmower. Thus, an obligation requires all of its necessary enablers. ~C~ No Act Omission Distinction – choosing to omit is an act in and of itself thus people psychologically decide not to act – and if they win there is a distinction auto negate because we can always omit an action making the squo always an option.~4~ We have no unified consciousness—empirics,Parfit 84 ~Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) AND , and can receive two different answers written by this person’s two hands. That means util—focus on individual people doesn’t matter, so only helping groups of people is important and only util does so.~5~ Extinction first – a) Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversible b) Moral obligation – allowing people to die is unethical and should be prevented because it creates ethics towards other people c) Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical.The brain seeks pleasure to initiate action – optogenetics proves.Schaffer 17 (MIT technology review, Amanda Schaffer is a freelance journalist who writes about science and medicine for Slate, the New York Times, and other publications. Neuroscientist Kay Tye tackles the physical basis of emotions and behavior. ~"How the Brain Seeks Pleasure and Avoids Pain" MIT research lab https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/06/27/150948/how-the-brain-seeks-pleasure-and-avoids-pain/ 6/27/17~ Mberhe AND out what to do in the face of complex and sometimes contradictory cues. | 9/17/21 |
1- NC- Util v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Jessica Wong | Judge: Tajaih Robinson The Standard is Maximizing Expected Wellbeing~1~ Extinction first –a) Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversibleb) Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessitiesc) Moral obligation – allowing people to die is unethical and should be prevented because it creates ethics towards other peopled) Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical~2~ Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework – Threats to bodily security preclude the ability for moral actors to act upon other theories since they are in a constant crisis that inhibits the moral conditions other theories presuppose.~3~ Pain provides an objective reason for why oppression is bad.Gray 09 ~Gray, James W. "An Argument for Moral Realism." Ethical Realism. N.p., 07 Oct. 2009. Web. 04 Sept. 2015. https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/an-argument-for-moral-realism/. MA in philosophy from San Jose State University (2008)~ AND states that we don’t all merely share a subjective preference in avoiding pain, ~4~ Ground – Both debaters have ground to engage under util – Aff gets plans, while Neg gets DAs and counterplans. AND anything can function under util if it has an external benefit. Other fwrks deny 1 side engagement on link and impact level. Hyper-specific theories mean people have little prep on the issue. TJFs OW because concerns fairness – OW all args concede valid of fairness.The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that produces the best material consequences based on the fiated implications of the plan –~1~ No performative or methodological offense – It’s extra-T which is a voter for limits, spiking out of neg ground making any discussion worse.~2~ Strat Skew – the resolution is the only stasis point and adding other factors to the round decks predictable limits which guts pre round prep.~3~ Inclusion – Novices and Lay debaters all use the material consequences in the plan – proven by every lay tournament outside the circuit – by increasing the burden to your model you exclude them from the space. | 9/25/21 |
1- New Affs BadTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Jessica Wong | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Interpretation—the aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message.Violation—they didn’tVote neg for prep and clash—two internal links—a) neg prep—4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics—30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative b) aff quality—plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn’t inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, it should lose—this will answer the 1ar’s claim about innovation—with 30 minutes of prep, there’s still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can’t check against the broader literature. Fairness is a voter—judge’s constitutive role is to evaluate the better debater which is impossible if the round’s skewed.Fairness- gateway issue- debate is a game which cant evaluate if unfair-need rules to eval objectively constitutive- all args presuppose validity Education – voter only portable skill and reason why schools fund debatedisclosure is DTD – their abusive advocacy skewed the debate from the start B~ DTA is incoherent because we indict their advocacyUse 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) logic (b) baiting (c) topic education | 9/25/21 |
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 |
1- ROB- Truth Testing v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Millburn AK | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 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.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.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. 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. | 9/18/21 |
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- DA- BiotechTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Coppell RM | Judge: Chris Castillo AND the U.S. risks these technologies being mastered by Chinese companies. The plan chills American biomed innovation, ceding control to China – also can’t solve future diseasesPaulsen 7/9 ~ERIK PAULSEN: We can save the world with our vaccines — without surrendering our IP to China," Bakersfield Californian, https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/erik-paulsen-we-can-save-the-world-with-our-vaccines-without-surrendering-our-ip-to/article'b0b87692-df61-11eb-9a13-d7fa02eefaee.html~~//Lex AKu AND the only way to keep China at bay and American innovators at work. Biotech leadership key to future military primacy.Moore 21 ~(Scott Moore is a political scientist and administrator at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of a forthcoming book, "How China Shapes the Future," on China’s role in public goods and emerging technologies.) 8-8-2021, "In Biotech, the Industry of the Future, the U.S. Is Way Ahead of China," Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/biotech-industry-future-us-way-ahead-china~~//Lex AKu AND dramatically reduce the risk of sophisticated bioweapons development in the decades to come. Heg solves arms races, land grabs, rogue states, and great power war.Brands 18 ~Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments." American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump." Page 129-133~ AND to its military dominance than it has for at least a quarter century. | 10/4/21 |
SO- DA- Biotech v2Tournament: Duke Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Durham AA | Judge: Callie Ham AND the U.S. risks these technologies being mastered by Chinese companies. The plan chills American biomed innovation on vaccines, ceding control to China – also can’t solve future diseasesPaulsen 7/9 ~ERIK PAULSEN: We can save the world with our vaccines — without surrendering our IP to China," Bakersfield Californian, https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/erik-paulsen-we-can-save-the-world-with-our-vaccines-without-surrendering-our-ip-to/article'b0b87692-df61-11eb-9a13-d7fa02eefaee.html~~//Lex AKu AND the only way to keep China at bay and American innovators at work. The plan hands over decades of American innovation to ChinaWSJ Editorial Board 5-6 ~"Biden’s Vaccine IP Debacle" https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/bidens-vaccine-ip-debacle-11620341686.~~ TDI AND the production deal Mr. Biden negotiated between JandJ and Merck. Biotech leadership key to future military primacy.Moore 21 ~(Scott Moore is a political scientist and administrator at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of a forthcoming book, "How China Shapes the Future," on China’s role in public goods and emerging technologies.) 8-8-2021, "In Biotech, the Industry of the Future, the U.S. Is Way Ahead of China," Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/biotech-industry-future-us-way-ahead-china~~//Lex AKu AND dramatically reduce the risk of sophisticated bioweapons development in the decades to come. Heg solves arms races, land grabs, rogue states, and great power war.Brands 18 ~Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments." American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump." Page 129-133~ AND to its military dominance than it has for at least a quarter century. | 10/3/21 |
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- NC- SkepTournament: Yale University Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Millburn AK | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Presumption and permissibility negate – 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.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.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. | 9/18/21 |
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 |
SO- T- NebelTournament: Duke Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Durham AA | Judge: Callie Ham Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend WTO member nations reducing intellectual property protections for a subset of medicines.The upward entailment test and adverb test determine the genericity of a bare pluralLeslie and Lerner 16 ~Sarah-Jane Leslie, Ph.D., Princeton, 2007. Dean of the Graduate School and Class of 1943 Professor of Philosophy. Served as the vice dean for faculty development in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, director of the Program in Linguistics, and founding director of the Program in Cognitive Science at Princeton University. Adam Lerner, PhD Philosophy, Postgraduate Research Associate, Princeton 2018. From 2018, Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow in the Center for Bioethics at New York University. Member of the Princeton Social Neuroscience Lab.~ "Generic Generalizations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 24, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ TG
AND perhaps better used than "usually" to mark off the generic reading.) Patent waiver is not topical.Tom Lee 21 (Data and Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum) And Christopher Holt (the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum), 5/10/21, Intellectual Property, COVID-19 Vaccines, and the Proposed TRIPS Waiver, https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/intellectual-property-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-proposed-trips-waiver/~~#ixzz75KTH1nPx SJEP AND pharmaceutical chemical compounds, and respirators would also be subject to the waiver. It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn’t entail reducing protections for aids, because it doesn’t prove that we should derestrict other beneficial tech, 2~ adverb test – member nations "ought to usually reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn’t substantially change resolutional meaning, 3~ predicate level – the rez is an individual level predicate not a stage level because moral obligations in ought statements are long-lasting as opposed to fleeting phasesViolation – they only defend ' covid medicinesVote neg:1~ Limits – you can pick anything from COVID vaccines to HIV/AIDS to random biotech to insulin treatments and there’s no universal disad since each one has a different function and implication for health, tech, and relations – explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible. PICs don’t solve – it’s absurd to say neg potential abuse justifies the aff being flat out not T, which leads to a race towards abuse. Limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep.2~ TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff. | 10/3/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/3/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/3/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/3/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/11/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/12/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/13/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/4/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/25/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/26/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/29/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/29/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/29/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
7/30/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/17/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 23ghosh2@lexingtonmaorg |
|