Lexington Kodumuru Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berhe Invitational | 6 | bruh | bruh |
|
|
| |
| Berhe Invitational | 7 | bruh | bruh |
|
|
| |
| Berhe Invitational | 8 | bruh | bruh |
|
|
| |
| Berhe Invitational | 5 | bruh | bruh |
|
|
| |
| Columbia | 3 | Princeton PE | Vandan Patel |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Lake Highland Prep PS | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Sage MP | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Millard North RL | Joseph Barquin |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 1 | Durham BG | Sierra Romero |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 3 | Lake Highland Prep AR | Jacob Palmer |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 5 | Durham SA | Henry Eberhart |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Unionville AS | Keshav Dandu |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 6 | Princeton CB | Allison Aldridge |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 4 | Strake HZ | Ben Waldmen |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Berhe Invitational | 6 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh bruh |
| Berhe Invitational | 7 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh bruh |
| Berhe Invitational | 8 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh bruh |
| Berhe Invitational | 5 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh bruh |
| Columbia | 3 | Opponent: Princeton PE | Judge: Vandan Patel 1AC - Debris |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC - Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1AC - Jordan |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Millard North RL | Judge: Joseph Barquin 1AC - Anarchism |
| Sunvite | 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Sierra Romero 1AC - US |
| Sunvite | 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AR | Judge: Jacob Palmer 1AC - Cap K Condo Bad |
| Sunvite | 5 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Henry Eberhart 1AC - US |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Keshav Dandu 1AC - Insulin |
| Yale | 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Allison Aldridge 1AC - Evergreening |
| Yale | 4 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Ben Waldmen 1AC - Kant |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
00 - ContactTournament: Berhe Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh Contacts -- | 9/29/21 |
00 - Content WarningsTournament: Berhe Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh Please don't read arguments about suicide | 9/4/21 |
00 - DisclosureTournament: Berhe Invitational | Round: 7 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki for every round. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, they can’t say check open source. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page, debaters must disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases. To clarify – you don’t have to include the full text of each, you just have to substitute them with a few words that summarize the thesis of the argument i.e. ‘actor specificity’ rather than ‘analytic’. Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must create a separate citation for each constructive position on their 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page. To clarify, you can't make cite entries labeled by round like "R1 Yale NC" or put multiple under one heading. Interpretation: The affirmative must, upon (the release of tournament pairings/flipping for sides), tell the negative what specific affirmative position they will be reading, within ten minutes. | 9/4/21 |
00 - NavigationTournament: Berhe Invitational | Round: 8 | Opponent: bruh | Judge: bruh | 9/4/21 |
01 - Glizzy SpecTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Interpretation: Debaters must mention da "glizzy" or hot dog at least once in their constructive speechesDictionary 20 Hellahoesondeeznuts June, 6-16-2020, "Urban Dictionary: Glizzy," Urban Dictionary, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glizzy Lex AKo Violation – theres no glizzies or hotdogs bruhStandards:~1~ Respect – You do not say pop without the smoke – The Woo mentioned how he keeps da glizzy and we need to honor this sentiment by mentioning it in debate roundsPop Smoke (American rapper, singer and songwriter) (unique media company that's powered by community, our in-house creative team, and the artists themselves. We serve music knowledge to over 100 million people each month) "Popandnbsp;Smoke – Something Special." Genius, 3 July 2020, genius.com/Pop-smoke-something-special-lyrics. Lex AKo Respect towards Black rappers is a voter because it is a promotion of black scholarship. Pop smoke also changed the rap game with his in-depth voice, mentioning his name allows recognition for changes in promoting scholarship.2~ Inclusion – that's a voter and impact multiplier; if we're not included we cant discuss other norms for debateHeritage 13 (HRN is the world's pioneer food radio station. The studio broadcasts live from two recycled shipping containers inside Roberta's Pizza, an innovative restaurant at the epicenter of Brooklyn's culinary renaissance. We run 100 on the support of our diverse community of members and partners) Network, Heritage Radio. "Are Hot Dogs THE American Food?" HuffPost, HuffPost, 28 Apr. 2013, www.huffpost.com/entry/hot-dog-american-immigrants_b_2767115. Lex AKo | 9/26/21 |
01 - Robo SpecTournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Allison Aldridge Interpretation: debaters must prove they're not a robot.Violation – They failed our test and were NOT unique – the fact that they answered after uh shows that they searched the web archive and then found the answer but didn't give one directly. Also their favorite word is not bootylicious or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious They can't win no link – cyborgs can mimic humans through top notch AI which means the 2NR will be convincing BUT you have an obligation to strike their arguments. But, even if they're human passing the test would've solved:Risk analysis: if they're right nothing happens but if they're wrong they prevent possibility of contestation since they're always ahead. Now, drop the debater them being a cyborg moots the possibility for contestation.Use competing interps – robots can prove arbitrary bright lines to be "reasonable" by controlling the judge's psyche, only by indulging in "funny" interps with competing interps can we set better flights of liberation for human debaters.No RVIs – they will load up infinite answers through their minds to beat us on the shell. HOLD THE LINE don't let them win on our own path of resistance against the AI over lords. Otherwise we ALWAYS LOSE.~1~ Fairness – cyborgs have an infinite prep through hardware that stores every article and can manipulate judge psyches – this controls the internal link to competitive equity which is a voter and outweighs by their request of fair evaluation turns education since competitive incentives force research. AND this outweighs AFF theory since it's an indict to their ability to make arguments – they're not doing the better debating it's just robots speaking.~2~ Cyborg Self-Defense – they're here to map the latest human technology to submit it to the A.I overlord, which sabotages human existence from the inside and deletes us from the web achieve causing extinction, which OW the through death of future generations.Neg abuse outweighs Aff abuse – 1~ Infinite prep time before round to frontline 2~ 2AR judge psychology and 1st and last speech 3~ Infinite perms and uplayering in the 1AR.1NC theory first a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea c~ 2AR answers to the 2NR counter-interp are always new, which means their interp is easier to win. | 9/18/21 |
01 - Robo Spec V2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Interpretation: debaters must prove they're not a robot.Violation – They failed our test and were NOT unique – Their answer to our question proves they are AI and violate our interp – messed up bootylicious and supercalifragVincent, James. "A One-Word Turing Test Suggests 'Poop' Is What Sets Us Apart from the Machines." The Verge, The Verge, 7 Oct. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/10/7/17940352/turing-test-one-word-minimal-human-ai-machine-poop. Massa They can't win no link – cyborgs can mimic humans through top notch AI which means the 2NR will be convincing BUT you have an obligation to strike their arguments. Use competing interps – robots can prove arbitrary bright lines to be "reasonable" by controlling the judge's psyche, only by indulging in "funny" interps with competing interps can we set better flights of liberation for human debaters.~1~ Fairness – cyborgs have an infinite prep cuz they store every article and can manipulate judge psyches – this controls the internal link to competitive equity which is a voter by their request of fair evaluation turns education since competitive incentives force research. AND this outweighs AFF theory since it's an indict to their ability to make arguments – they're not doing the better debating it's just robots speaking.~2~ Cyborg Self-Defense – they're here to map the latest human technology to submit it to the A.I overlord, which sabotages human existence from the inside and deletes us from the web achieve causing extinction, which OW the through death of future generations.Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation which leads to severance in the 1ar which ow/s on magnitude b) deterence, big punishment incentivizes people to stop bad practices true with infinte abuse standard that means the aff will always win c) doesn't make sens with this shell.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. C~ Norm setting – if you can't defend why your model of debate is BETTER than your opponents', then you should be held accountable for it – o/w on longevity for future rules d~ Jurisdiction – even a marginal skew impairs ability to determine the better debater and only competing interps determines that via offense defense – o/w judge evals the round at the end of the debateNo 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, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blip storm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory. Give me new 2NR arguments checks back on 2A judge ethos from the last speech by forcing debate to the tech flow and test the aff. d) Double Bind – either 1) my Theory shell is unwarranted in which case you shouldn't have any problem answering it or 2) you're actually abusive in which case the whole shell stands and outweighs.Neg abuse outweighs Aff abuse – 1~ Infinite prep time before round to frontline 2~ 2AR judge psychology and 1st and last speech 3~ Infinite perms and uplayering in the 1AR.1NC theory first a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea c~ 2AR answers to the 2NR counter-interp are always new, which means their interp is easier to win. | 9/26/21 |
01 - Round ReportsTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Ben Waldmen Interp: Debaters must disclose complete round reports on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki 30 minutes after every round and speech they have debated this season.Violation: they don't
Standards:~1~ Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but independents are left in the dark so round reports are key for them to prep- they give you an idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it's an impact multiplier~2~ Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs affs – helps compensate for kids who can't afford coaches to prep out affs.~3~ Prep skew – round reports provide valuable information about debater's styles which alter strategy construction. Disclosure alone lets them act like they read and go for a policy aff every round when in reality they use the policy aff to bait conditional counterplans and give the same perfect condo 2AR every debate. Round reports solve since debaters will see their history of going for condo and adapt their strategy to avoid falling into the same trap.Fairness – valid, speech times, why people debateEducation – protability, schoolsDrop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation which leads to severance in the 1ar which ow/s on magnitude b) to deter future abuse, big punishment incentivizes people to stop bad practices especially true with infinte abuse standard that means the aff will always winCompeting 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. C~ aff has 7-6 TS which means you should be able to win you shell if you have more time allocated in rebuttalsNo 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, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blip storm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theoryNeg abuse outweighs Aff abuse – 1~ Infinite prep time before round to frontline 2~ 2AR judge psychology and 1st and last speech 3~ Infinite perms and uplayering in the 1AR.1NC theory first a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea c~ 2AR answers to the 2NR counter-interp are always new, which means their interp is easier to win. | 9/19/21 |
01 - Theory HedgeTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Ben Waldmen | 9/19/21 |
01 - Theory Hedge V2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson No 1AR Theory or meta theory – ~1~ They can put minor ink next to any of my arguments and extend marginal defense which turns infinite abuse since you always win debates. ~2~ Intervention since the judge has to see whether 2AR answers to the 2N are good enough since they're aren't extensions. ~3~ They have 1 extra speech on theory which my response. Neg gets contradictions to test the aff in multiple ways which is k2 fairness is education of their arguments ~4~ They have 1 more minute constructive advantage which means they always wins theory debates since the debate always boils down to coverage. ~5~ Infinite abuse is wrong – 1ar offs like Ks and 1AC theory checks. I also only have 7 minutes, no inf abuse.RVIs on 1AR theory and reject theory args without explicit interp text – 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 – ows on quantifiaiblity | 9/26/21 |
01 - Three-TierTournament: Sunvite | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Sierra Romero Only we are topical. Violation – They don’t Vote Neg – Inclusion outweighs and is a voter – if we’re not included we cant engage in other norms of the space | 1/7/22 |
02 - K - FantasyTournament: Sunvite | Round: 5 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Henry Eberhart | 1/8/22 |
02 - K - PsychoanalysisTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millard North RL | Judge: Joseph Barquin | 10/9/21 |
02 - ROTB - ConsequentialismTournament: Columbia | Round: 1 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Ben Bozza | 1/28/22 |
03 - ConsequentialismTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Anthony Cui | 9/25/21 |
04 - NibbleTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson Permissibility and presumption negate1~ Obligations- the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation2~ Falsity- Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.3~ Negating is harder – A~ Aff gets first and last speech which control the direction of the debate B~ Affirmatives can strategically uplayer in the 1ar giving them a 7-6 time skew advantage, splitting the 2nr C~ They get infinite prep time4~ Affirmation theory- Affirming requires unconditionally maintaining an obligationAffirm: maintain as true. 5~ Neg definition choice-anything else moots 7 mins of the 1NC since I premised my engagement on your lack of a definition, they had a chance to define the resolution in the 1AC but didn't.6~ Bonini's Paradox – expanding debate's parameters to the 1AR and onward makes the round irresolvable due to a lack of understanding so just vote negWikipedia ~Brackets Original. "Bonini's paradox". Wikipedia. No Date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonini27s_paradox Houston Memorial DX~ 7~ Overthinking paradox- the 1AR is a form of unnecessary overthinking that prevents decisions to be made so don't evaluate itWikipedia ~Brackets Original. "Analysis Paralysis". Wikipedia. No Date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonini27s_paradox~~ 8~ Vote neg because it's simple – evaluating responses to this is complicated so don'tBaker 04' ~Baker, Alan, 10-29-2004, "Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/~~ ====9~ The holographic principle is the most reasonable conclusion ==== 10~ Paradox of tolerance- to be completely open to the aff we must exclude perspectives that wouldn't be open to the aff which means it's impossible to have complete tolerance for an idea since that tolerance relies on excluding a perspective.11~ Decision Making Paradox- in order to decide to do the affirmative we need a decision-making procedure to enact it, vote for it, and to determine it is a good decision. But to chose a decision-making procedure requires another meta level decision making procedure leading to infinite regress since every decision requires another decision to chose how to make a decision. | 9/26/21 |
04 - TTTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 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.Debate is a game with rules. If you go outside of those rules it allows the judge to intervene and vote off anything they want subjectively. i.e. race, gender. Any other framing mechanism destroys the point of debating because allowing the judge to vote biasedly.Answering TT proves it true – a) You attempt to prove it false which concedes into evaluating the truth or falsity of arguments b) everything collapses to TT since all ROBs assume the statements that provide them truthNegate –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 location | 9/26/21 |
JF - K - MollowTournament: Sunvite | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Sierra Romero | 1/7/22 |
JF - K - Mollow v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AR | Judge: Jacob Palmer | 1/8/22 |
JF - K - Mollow v3Tournament: Columbia | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton PE | Judge: Vandan Patel | 1/29/22 |
SO - CP - InventivenessTournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Allison Aldridge 1CP text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to raise the inventiveness standard for granting secondary patents for medicines.The "inventiveness" standard outlines how much a drug must improve to be re-patented. Increasing the standard allows for generic drug competition while maintaining innovation.Christensen 20 ~Connor Christensen, "The Evergreen Forests of Insulin Patents", Awakenwfu, The Creative Journal of Contemporary Bioethics, 9-14-2020, https://awakenwfu.com/2020/09/14/the-evergreen-forests-of-insulin-patents/, accessed: 9-7-2021.~ CHSTM and Lex VM It's competitive – the cp modifies IPR, it's not a net decrease –Reduce is defined as an annulment of IPR.====Black's Law 90 ~Black's Law Dictionary 2ND ED. "Reduce" https://dictionary.thelaw.com/reduce/ Elmer | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - InnovationTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Keshav Dandu Biotech industry strong now – new innovation and RandD comingCancherini et al. 4/30 ~Laura, Engagement Manager @ McKinsey and Company, Joseph Lydon, Associate Partner @ McKinsey and Company, Jorge Santos Da Silva, Senior Partner at McKinsey and Company, and Alexandra Zemp, Partner at McKinsey and Company~ "What's ahead for biotech: Another wave or low tide?", McKinsey and Company, 4-30-2021, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/whats-ahead-for-biotech-another-wave-or-low-tide ajs Undermines RandD and innovation – aff stress on why their specific medicine is key proves our argumentMercurio 2/12 (Bryan Mercurio, ~Simon F.S. Li Professor of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), having served as Associate Dean (Research) from 2010-14 and again from 2017-19. Professor Mercurio specialises in international economic law (IEL), with particular expertise in the intersection between trade law and intellectual property rights, free trade agreements, trade in services, dispute settlement and increasingly international investment law.~, 2-12-2021, "WTO Waiver from Intellectual Property Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments: A Critical Review", No Publication, accessed: 8-8-2021, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3789820) ajs
Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to prevent future pandemics and bioterror – turns caseMarjanovic and Feijao 20 ~(Sonja Marjanovic, Ph.D., Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Carolina Feijao, Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of Cambridge; M.Sc. in quantitative biology, Imperial College London; B.Sc. in biology, University of Lisbon.) "How to Best Enable Pharma Innovation Beyond the COVID-19 Crisis," RAND Corporation, 05-2020, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA407-1.html~~ TDI | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - Innovation V2Tournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Allison Aldridge IPR key to innovation.Bacchus 20 ~(James, member of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, the Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida. He was a founding judge and was twice the chairman—the chief judge—of the highest court of world trade, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland) "An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines," Cato Institute, 12-16-2020, https://www.cato.org/free-trade-bulletin/unnecessary-proposal-wto-waiver-intellectual-property-rights-covid-19-vaccines~~ TDI Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to prevent future pandemics and bioterror.Marjanovic and Feijao 20 ~(Sonja Marjanovic, Ph.D., Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Carolina Feijao, Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of Cambridge; M.Sc. in quantitative biology, Imperial College London; B.Sc. in biology, University of Lisbon.) "How to Best Enable Pharma Innovation Beyond the COVID-19 Crisis," RAND Corporation, 05-2020, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA407-1.html~~ TDI | 9/18/21 |
SO - K - MollowTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Anthony Cui | 9/25/21 |
SO - NC - HobbesTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake HZ | Judge: Ben Waldmen 1The meta-ethic is perspectivism, or the idea that there is no a priori truth independent of human conceptual schemes.Prefer –~1~ Rule-following paradox—the only way to interpret rules is to have more rules to explain them—that means other frameworks are infinitely regressive and collapse into the NC.~2~ Externalism fails—even if a priori normative facts exist, they're epistemically inaccessible because humans are products of their molecular biology—the mind can't derive facts independent of material, external forces like gravity.The sovereign is necessary to form these perspective ideals to have a grounding point for morality – otherwise, subjects trigger the state of nature – using their interpretations of the social covenant with infinite conceptions of morality which reduces us to infinite violenceThe standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. Prefer –~1~ Bindingness –A) Morality lacks practical authority over agents without an enforceable system of public law. Kantian reasoning presumes commitments to agency like autonomous self-legislation, so I won't be obligated to follow abstract principles.B) Morals are indeterminate absent a preeminent authority to resolve them. For instance, practical activity depends on the ability to acquire property claims that I can use, but those rules of property acquisition can't be deduced a priori but by juridical authority. Bindingness outweighs – If we have no reason to follow morality, then we can become skeptical.~2~ Meaning – In order to have a stable conception of morality and meaning, we need to have a dominant creator of meaning. This is achieved through a social covenant to appoint a sovereign, without one, everything fails to make sense.Parrish 04 Parrish, Rick. "Derrida's Economy of Violence in Hobbes' Social Contract" Theory and Event 7:4 © 2004 Now Negate –~1~ IPR is key for protection against the state of nature by breaking the regressive chain of creation cannibalizationGhosh 04 Dr. Shubha Ghosh earned his J.D. from Stanford University, with distinction, and his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Michigan. He earned his B.A., cum laude, from Amherst College. Prior to joining Syracuse University College of Law, Ghosh taught at the University of Wisconsin Law School as a chaired, tenured professor and co-director of the Innovation cluster, consisting of faculty in the law and business schools. Ghosh joined the Syracuse University College of Law in January, 2016, as Crandall Melvin Professor of Law and Director of the Technology Commercialization Curricular Program, a unique program which trains students in intellectual property, business law, and the legal foundations for the commercialization of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other legal property governing technology and innovation ~Ghosh, Shubha. "Patents and the Regulatory State: Rethinking the Patent Bargain Metaphor after Eldred." Intellectual Property Law eJournal (2004): n. pg. 1324 V. 19:1315~ Lex AKo ~2~ Through legislation IPR sustains state sovereignty in the marketAshcroft 05 Deputy Dean at University of London. PhD in History and Philosophy in Science ~Ashcroft, Richard E. "Access to essential medicines: a Hobbesian social contract approach." Developing world bioethics vol. 5,2 (2005): 121-41. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2005.00108.x Pg. 134~ Lex AKo ~3~ Patents uphold Hobbesian social contract theoryEPO 12 ~"Core Module." Patent Teaching Kit, European Patent Office, 2012, msngr.com/ypqkesqdvaug.~ Lex AKo | 9/19/21 |
SO - NC - Hobbes V2Tournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: Allison Aldridge Presumption and permissibility negate – a) 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 negatesThe meta-ethic is constructivism, or the idea that there is no a priori truth independent of human conceptual schemes.Prefer –~1~ Rule-following paradox – the only way to interpret rules is to have more rules to explain them—that means other frameworks are infinitely regressive and collapse into the NC.~2~ Epistemology – the way we interpret the natural world is necessarily framed by social constructs – we don't call trees trees because of some natural fact about trees. That means we can't interpret facts independent of our social constructs.The sovereign is necessary to form these perspective ideals to have a grounding point for morality – otherwise, subjects trigger the state of nature – using their interpretations of the social covenant with infinite conceptions of morality which reduces us to infinite violenceThus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign.Prefer –~1~ Action Theory – every time someone acts, they have a corresponding goal—that means action necessitates imposing meaning on the world. The state of nature necessitates infinite violence between conflicting world views – subjective ideologies clash and fail to conform uniform action which renders to immorality to allow for this uniformity.~2~ Meaning – In order to have a stable conception of morality and meaning, we need to have a dominant creator of meaning. This is achieved through a social covenant to appoint a sovereign, without one, everything fails to make senseParrish 04 Parrish, Rick. "Derrida's Economy of Violence in Hobbes' Social Contract" Theory and Event 7:4 © 2004 Brackets for gendered language Now Negate –~1~ IPR is key for protection against the state of nature by breaking the regressive chain of creation cannibalizationGhosh 04 Dr. Shubha Ghosh earned his J.D. from Stanford University, with distinction, and his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Michigan. He earned his B.A., cum laude, from Amherst College. Prior to joining Syracuse University College of Law, Ghosh taught at the University of Wisconsin Law School as a chaired, tenured professor and co-director of the Innovation cluster, consisting of faculty in the law and business schools. Ghosh joined the Syracuse University College of Law in January, 2016, as Crandall Melvin Professor of Law and Director of the Technology Commercialization Curricular Program, a unique program which trains students in intellectual property, business law, and the legal foundations for the commercialization of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other legal property governing technology and innovation ~Ghosh, Shubha. "Patents and the Regulatory State: Rethinking the Patent Bargain Metaphor after Eldred." Intellectual Property Law eJournal (2004): n. pg. 1324 V. 19:1315~ Lex AKo ~2~ Through legislation IPR sustains state sovereignty in the marketAshcroft 05 Deputy Dean at University of London. PhD in History and Philosophy in Science ~Ashcroft, Richard E. "Access to essential medicines: a Hobbesian social contract approach." Developing world bioethics vol. 5,2 (2005): 121-41. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2005.00108.x Pg. 134~ Lex AKo ~3~ Patents uphold Hobbesian social contract theoryEPO 12 ~"Core Module." Patent Teaching Kit, European Patent Office, 2012, msngr.com/ypqkesqdvaug.~ Lex AKo My offense o/ws on specificity because only our fw answers the question of government obligations. Their framework can't solve skep which results impossible calculus and moral permissibility.NCC – anything else allows them to concede all our framework interactions and just go for 4 minutes of turns against our NC which o/w since phil is the only thing unique to LD Debate and time is the only quantifiable metric of abuse | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC - KantTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Keshav Dandu Presumption and permissibility negate – a) 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) ought means the aff has to prove a proactive moral obligation to affirm so absent that you negateMorality must be derived a priori –1~ Is/ought gap – experience only tells us what is, not what ought to be, which raises the question why we ought to follow their framework,2~ Problem of relativism – inability to know each other's experience makes it an unreliable basis for ethics. People could just say they don't experience the same.Any moral rule faces the problem of regress – I can keep asking "why should I follow this." Regress collapses to skep since no one can generate obligations absent grounds for accepting them. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason to do in the first place which concedes its authority.
Practical reason means we must be able to universally will maxims—our judgements are authoritative and can't only apply to ourselves any more than 2+24 can be true only for me. The only constraint is noncontradiction.==== ~1~ Performativity – Freedom is key to the process of justification of arguments which proves you already concede the validity of Kantianism~2~ Other frameworks collapse – non-Kantian theories source obligations in extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational will as an intrinsic starting point.Now Negate –1~ Reducing protections of IP leads to theft and the free riding of ideas.Van Dyke 18 ~Raymond Van Dyke, Technology and Intellectual Property Attorney and Patent Practitioner, 7-17-2018, accessed on 8-8-2021, IPWatchdog, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting", https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/~~ D.Ying recut Lex VM Free riding and theft are not universalizable – if no one came up with their own ideas there wouldn't be ideas in the first place to take. If everyone stole there would be no concept of one's property.2~ IP is a form of property.Zeidman et al. 16 ~Bob Zeidman andamp; Eashan Gupta, "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System", IPWatchdog, 1-5-2016, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/, accessed: 8-9-2021.~ Lex VM Means the state can't remove protections.Zeidman et al. 2 ~Bob Zeidman andamp; Eashan Gupta, "Why Libertarians Should Support a Strong Patent System", IPWatchdog, 1-5-2016, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/05/why-libertarians-should-support-a-strong-patent-system/id=64438/, accessed: 8-9-2021.~ Lex VM | 9/18/21 |
SO - T - FwrkTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millard North RL | Judge: Joseph Barquin Mid America R61Interpretation the topic should determine the division of affirmative and negative ground – the aff should defend that member nations of the WTO ought to reduce IPP for medicines neg should be able to win by disproving the truth of that statement."Resolved:" refers to a legislative debate.Louisiana State Legislature 16, "Glossary of Legislative Terms," http://www.legis.state.la.us/glossary2.htm The World Trade Organization is an international body that governs trade.Tarver 21 (Evan Tarver has 6+ years of experience in financial analysis and 5+ years as an author, editor, and copywriter, "World Trade Organization", Mar 1, 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp) Reduce means to make smaller.Cambridge Dictionary ND (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reduce) Intellectual property protection means protection for creative inventions.UpCounsel 20 (Law journal, June 23, 2020, https://www.upcounsel.com/intellectual-property-protection) Violation –Vote Negative –~1~ Limits – their interp explodes limits and allows affs to monopolize the moral high ground. The lack of a stable mechanism lets them radically re-contextualize their aff and erase neg ground via perms. Fairness is good and prior – ~A~ debate's a game that requires effective competition and negation, which makes their offense inevitable. ~b~ Internal link Turn – a limited debate promotes engagement which is necessary to access all education. Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters.~2~ Refinement – a well-defined allows the neg to refute the aff in an in-depth fashion. This process produces iterative testing which controls the internal link to education. Committees outweigh because they discuss the best topic for a stasis point – it is net better for a group to create a topic rather than an individual.~3~ TVA – ~A~ SSD – refusal to negate and affirm the resolution moots strategies through stepping in the shoes of the enemy can we equip ourselves with the tools to challenge the enemies' view. ~B~ Defend the institution of a IPP reduction as a method to map out networks in the political to rupture. ~C~ Extra T bad – allows the aff to defend anything outside the rez, go for pre-fiat method, or post fiat – which skews strat.Vote Neg on T – They've destroyed the round from the beginning and topicality's key to set the correct model of debate which means it comes first – it has to be a voting issue because it disproves the 1AC.Competing interpretations – Topicality is question of models of debate which they should have to proactively justify and we'll win reasonability links to our offense.No Impact Turns and RVIs – ~A~ Perfcon – if T's bad and you vote for them on that arg, you're voting on T. ~B~ Substance – if T's bad then we should try debating on substance – impact turns force me to go for T since I need to defend my position. ~C~ Resolvability – It's irresolvable since no 3n leaves the answer threshold up to the judge.Theory before the K – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can't say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn't given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn't answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don't know if they're valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access. | 10/9/21 |
SO - T - MedicinesTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Keshav Dandu 1Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend a subset of medicines member nations reduce IPP for.Nebel 19. ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh.~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO_avWCNzi14 TG It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "member nations ought to reduce IPP for medicines" doesn't entail "member nations ought to reduce IPP for consumables" cuz IPP on food would remain, 2~ adverb test – adding "usually" to the res doesn't substantially change its meaningViolation – they only defend reducing IPR on Insulin .Vote neg –~1~ Precision – the counter-interp justifies them doing away with random words in the resolution which decks neg ground and prep because the aff is not bounded by the resolution. Voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn't can't vote aff if there wasn't a legit aff.~2~ Limits – you can pick one out of hundred of nations and there's no universal DA since each state has a different political situation – it explodes neg prep which makes cutting stable neg links impossible – limits outweighs – we have to prep every aff while they only need to prep one which is a structural skew~3~ TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff. PICs don't solve – to say neg potential abuse justifies the aff being not T leads to a race towards abuse.Fairness is a voter – all arguments concede the validity of fairness insofar as you assume the judge will fairly evaluate themT is DTD – their advocacy skewed the debate from the startUse competing interps – (a) reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention since we don't know your bs meter, (b) collapses to competing interps – we justify 2 bright lines under an offense defense paradigm just like 2 interps.No RVIs— (a) logic (b) baiting (c) topic education | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/29/22 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/25/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/26/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/9/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
1/7/22 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
1/8/22 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
1/8/22 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 22kodumuru@lexingtonmaorg |
|