1AC - Megaconstellations 1NC - T appropriation Heg DA Starlink Pic case 1AR - All 2NR - Heg DA Case 2AR - Case Heg DA
Emory
4
Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Gordon Krauss
1AC - Space capitalism bad 1NC - Kant nc Spec Type of appropriation CCP DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - Kant Case 2AR - Kant
Emory
Triples
Opponent: Lake Higland AV | Judge: Dylan Jones, Stuckert, Jayln
1AC - Hegel 1NC - Spec appropriation util v1 Heg DA 1AR - All 2NR - DA Util Case 2AR - Case Util
Emory
Doubles
Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Grant Brown, Dylan Jones, Henry Eberhart
1AC - Racial Cap 1NC - Extra T bad Util v2 Indigenous Broadband DA Indigenous Appropriation Cp Case 1AR - All 2NR - Cp DA Case 2AR - Case CP DA
Emory
5
Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kate Totz
1AC - Set col 1NC - CCP DA NC - Util v2 Indigenous appropriation CP Indigenous Brodband DA T - defend policy action 1AR - All 2NR - CP DA Case 2AR - Case CP DA
Glenbrooks
2
Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Tajiah
1AC - Non T 1NC - Disclose plan text T framework Kant countermethod Case 1AR - All 2NR - Disclose plan text case 2AR - Case Disclose Plan Text
Glenbrooks
4
Opponent: Dulles IC | Judge: Javier
1AC - Whole rez (China adv) 1NC - T just gov (China) Military Pic CCP DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - Military pic T just gov 2AR - Case Military pic T just gov
Glenbrooks
6
Opponent: harker RM | Judge: Andrew Torrez
1AC - EU 1NC - Kant NC T A CP - Racist strikes 1AR - Kant turns T A Condo Pics 2NR - Condo Pics Kant turns T A 2AR - Kant T A
Glenbrooks
7
Opponent: Immac SS | Judge: Shreyaash Das
1AC - Brazil 1NC - T A T just Kant NC Police Pic
Glenbrooks
Doubles
Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Danielle, Sreyaash, Emmiee
1AC - Strikes 1NC - Kant nc Spec Enforcement Racist union strikes pic Military Pic Case 1AR - All 2NR - Kant case 2AR - kant
Greenhill
2
Opponent: Bellarmine AK | Judge: David Yi
1AC - Piracy K aff 1NC - Extra T bad Disclose plan text Kant NC 1AR - All 2NR - Disclose Plan Text 2AR - Case Disclose Plan text
Greenhill
3
Opponent: Westwood ST | Judge: JP Stuckert
1AC - Stock Innovation 1NC - Kant NC (Same as r1) Biotech DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - Biotech DA Case 2AR - Case
Greenhill
Doubles
Opponent: Seqouia AS | Judge: Sarena Lu, Gordon Krauss, Ishan Rereddy
1AC - Jordan 1NC - Disclose plan text T - Member States T - Medicine Kant NC 1AR - All turns to kant 2NR - T - Medicine Turns to kant 2AR - Turns to kant T - Data Exclusivity
Greenhill Fall Classic
6
Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Gordon Krauss
1AC - Weed 1NC - Nebel T marijuana Saudi Relations DA Kant 1AR - All condo pics 2NR - Nebel T 2AR - Case Nebel
Harvard
1
Opponent: Newtown KS | Judge: David Herrera
1AC - Veganism 1NC - T Framework Open Source Kant countermethod Case 1AR - All 2NR - Open source case 2AR - Case Open source
Harvard
3
Opponent: Ridge VS | Judge: Josh porter
1AC - Semiocap 1NC - Framework Open Source Kant countermethod (Same as harvard r1 lol) 1AR - All 2NR - Open source Case 2AR - Case Open source
Harvard
5
Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: JP Stuckert
1AC - Kant 1NC - CCP DA Util (v1) Can't say 1AR theory no rvis drop the debater aff theory first Case 1AR - All TJFs bad 2NR - Case TJFs bad 2AR - TJFs bad
Heart of Texas
1
Opponent: Harvard Westlake CR | Judge: Lindsey Williams
1AC- Covid 1NC - Spec Standard Text biotech Saudi Relations CP DA Case 1AR - all 2NR - Spec Standard Text Case 2AR - Case Spec Standard Text
Heart of Texas
3
Opponent: Marlborough WR | Judge: Ishan Rereddy
1AC - Covid 1NC - Biotech Nebel Saudi CP DA 1AR - All condo pics straight turn 2NR - Biotech Condo pics straight turn Case 2AR - Case Straight turn Biotech
Heart of Texas
5
Opponent: Harvard Westlake AL | Judge: Jack
1AC - Covid 1NC - Nebel T Biotech Kant 1AR - All 2NR - Kant Case 2AR - Case Kant
Heart of Texas
Octas
Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Danielle, David, Herrera
1AC - Biocolonialism 1NC - Innovation DA vs Indigenous Can't spec medicine kant case 1AR - All Voting issue 2NR - Can't spec medicine 2AR - Case can't spec medicine voting issue
Heart of Texas
Quarters
Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Sam Larson, Castillo, Skylar
1AC - Covid 1NC - CCP DA Nebel Kant 1AR - All 2NR - Kant Case 2AR - Case Kant
Meadows
2
Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jalyn Wu
1AC - Set col Music 1NC - Can't spec Medicine Music not medicine Kant Case 1AR - All 2NR - Kant Case 2AR - Case Kant
Meadows
3
Opponent: Southlake Carrol PK | Judge: Conal
1AC - Jordan 1NC - Kant SO T - Medicine Can't spec medicines 1AR - 3 new sheets rvi kant 2NR - Kant 3 new sheets rvi 2AR - Rvi
Meadows
6
Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Truman Le
1AC - Evergreening 1NC - Innovation Evergreening Adv vs Evergreening Kant T vs Evergeening Case 1AR - all condo 2NR - Kant Case Condo 2AR - Case Kant
1AC - China 1NC - CCP DA Nebel T Kant NC Case 1AR - All 2NR - Nebel case 2AR - Case Nebel
Valley
1
Opponent: Northern Valley Independent | Judge: Scopa
1AC - Burden Hobbes 1NC - Kant Can't say neg interps counterinterps and no rvis on Aff theory Case 1AR - all 2NR - Can't say neg interps counterinterps and no rvis on Aff theory 2AR - Can't say neg interps counterinterps and no rvis on Aff theory
Valley
3
Opponent: Mabel Rieger | Judge: Breigh
1AC - Lay 1NC - Counterfeit Kant 1AR - All 2NR - Kant 2AR - Case Kant
Valley
6
Opponent: Nathan Gong | Judge: Nikita
1AC - evergreening 1NC - Evergreening innovation Kant Adv CP Case 1AR - Condo bad afc kant exclusionary kant turns 2NR - All 2AR - Kant exclusionary
Valley
Doubles
Opponent: Saranya Singh | Judge: Panel
1AC - Covid 1NC - Biotech Kant Can't spec medicine 1AR - All 2NR - kant case 2AR - Case Kant
Valley RR
2
Opponent: American Heritage EM | Judge: Gordon, Brixz, Gonzaba
1AC - Virtue w adv 1NC - Util Biotech DA Distribution CP Case 1AR - All Neg fiat bad 2NR - Neg fiat bad DA CP Case 2AR - All
Valley RR
3
Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Holden, Jared Burke
1AC - Virtue w util adv 1NC - Util (Same as rr r3) Saudi DA (Same as other round) Distribution CP (Same) Reduce IP for covid 1AR - all pics bad condo 2NR - Pics condo Reduce IP for Covid Case 2AR - Case CP DA
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0 - Contact Info
Tournament: West Lex Invitational | Round: 9 | Opponent: Brett Round Reports Fortier | Judge: Flighreacts Hi I'm Archit
I prefer Messenger - Archit Kumar on facebook - Westbrook PFP
Email: 22kumar5@lexingtonma.org
9/15/21
0 - Note - Please read
Tournament: West Lex Invitational | Round: 8 | Opponent: Arun Kodumuru | Judge: Matthew Berhe 1 Please don't read death or disease good 2 Please contact me for questions about my disclosure or if you want me to meet a disclosure interp. Please don't be Brett Fortier!
9/15/21
1 - T - Extra T Bad
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bellarmine AK | Judge: David Yi Interpretation: The aff must only defend the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.
Violation: They fiat piracy and stealing of IP which is extra topical. If they don’t fiat it they have no spillover claims.
Vote neg 1 Predictable limits –absent topical constraints affirmative there is no stasis point for neg preparation which means we can’t predictably research your affirmative since there are thousands of literatures bases you could choose to base your affirmative on. That outweighs – a) you can dedicate 4 years to learning one literature base creating a structural skew to debaters who switch topics every 2 months and b) you can cherry pick advocacies like “racism is bad” which makes contesting the aff psychologically violent and they can always revise their aff to de-link from the few generics that are responsive. 2 Procedural Fairness first—a) ballot pic – at the end of the day they care about competition and want their arguments to be flowed which proves they care about competition, if they don’t care about winning then just vote neg. Solves their offense, there is no reason a ballot is key – our interp precludes voting on non-topical affs but not the reading of them b) scope of solvency – one ballot can’t alter subjectivity, but it can rectify skews which means the only impact to a ballot is fairness and resolving skews, c) competitive incentives – debate is a game and games are silly without a level playing field. There is no incentive to prep and research for hundreds of hours if you know you’ll be at a structural disadvantage which makes the game bad and prevents rigorous contestation of positions which produces the best advocates.
9/18/21
1 - Theory - 1AR theory, DTD, no neg rvis, highest layer
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 5 | Opponent: Scarsdale BS | Judge: JP Stuckert Interp: Aff can’t say the aff gets 1AR theory, it’s drop the debater, no neg rvis, and it’s the highest layer of the round.
1 Strat skew – makes the highest layer of the round inaccessible to the neg since you can introuce a shell that comes prior to anything and is a reason to drop me and I can never win off it since I don’t get an rvi. Independently, this incentives spamming shells in the 1AR. Reject “you can answer” combo shell proves ur norm is bad.
Concede fairness voter –
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 sine if you lose you will know better than to read silly arguments like this again.
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, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
2/20/22
1 - Theory - Cant say neg interps counterinterps and no rvis on aff theory
Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Northern Valley Independent | Judge: Scopa Interpretation: Can't say neg interps counterinterps and no rvis on aff theory
9/25/21
1 - Theory - Disclose Plan
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bellarmine AK | Judge: David Yi Interpretation: The aff must disclose the plan and framing text.
First is 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.
Can’t weigh or c/a the case ‘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, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
Violation—they didn't. You can tell its them since their number is disclosed on their wiki.
9/18/21
1 - Theory - Open Source
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Newtown KS | Judge: David Herrera Cites broken, see OS
2/19/22
1 - Theory - Spec Standard Text
Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake CR | Judge: Lindsey Williams Interpretation: The affirmative debater must read either a standard or role of the ballot.
1 Strat Skew – I don't know what matters under your framing – our ideas of what exactly matters may vary – means I can't engage substantively. You just have a bunch of random cards which could be reinterpreted in the 1AR depending on the 1NC 2 Resolvability – if there's dispute about whether certain impacts matter at the end of the round, the judge has to intervene because there's no stable standard text to refer to. Resolvability is a voter since the judge needs to come up with a winner. Drop the debater—there’s no argument to drop and the standard affects every part of the debate No rvis—it’s your burden to be fair and educational, same reason you don’t win for answering inherency or putting defense on a disad. Also causes chilling effect where debaters are scared to check abusive positions, proliferating abuse
CX Checks don’t solve – a) Pre round prep – I have to wait till cx to determine which offs are most strategic rather than being able to do it pre round or pre-tournament which is when the majority of prep happens, b) Verifiability – judges don’t flow cross ex so they might not catch the question or the answer which means that debates become irresolvable.
1AR Spec doesn’t solve –
Competing interps Fairness
10/16/21
2 - NC - Kantian Countermethod
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Newtown KS | Judge: David Herrera Cites broken see os
2/19/22
2 - NC - Util
Tournament: Valley RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage EM | Judge: Gordon, Brixz, Gonzaba 1 Goldstein 89 Irwin Goldstein, “Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrinsic Values”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , Dec., 1989, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Dec., 1989), pp. 255-276, International Phenomenological Society, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2107959?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents, Irvin Goldstein was a philosophy professor at Davidson College for 31 years Lex AKu
"While is good AND grounding of aversion."
2 Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework: Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose. That precludes the ability to have agency and have the value conferring status that their framework says is valuable 3 Actor specificity: A Governments must aggregate since every policy benefit some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action. B States lack wills or intentions since policies are collective actions. C No act omission distinction---choosing to omit is an act itself – people psychologically decide not to act. Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied, and link turns them because the alt would be no action. AND No intent foresight distinction – if I forsee 4 Ground – every impact function under util whereas other ethics can flow to one side exclusively. Util ensures equal playing field since affirmatives have different advantage areas and negs can read different pics, cps and disads. Kills fairness since we both need equal playing field. 5 Extinction is the biggest impact.
9/24/21
2 - NC - Util v2
Tournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kate Totz Cites broken, see os
1/30/22
4 - NC - Kant
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bellarmine AK | Judge: David Yi The meta ethic is procedural moral realism or the idea that ethics are derived in the noumenal world absent accounting for human experiences. 1 Is/Ought Gap – experience in the phenomenal world only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it’s impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises within the noumenal world to make a moral theory.
The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth—that means we must treat others as ends in themselves. Korsgaard ’83 (Christine M., “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR) OS/Recut Lex AKu *brackets for gendered language
The argument shows AND good our end.
Practical reason is inescapable - 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.
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
It is clear AND therefore include IPRs
9/18/21
4 - ND - T - A
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: harker RM | Judge: Andrew Torrez Cites not working SEE OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - T- Just Government
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Dulles IC | Judge: Javier Cites not working See OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - CCP DA
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Dulles IC | Judge: Javier Cites not working see OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - CP - Police Pic
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Immac SS | Judge: Shreyaash Das Cites not working see OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - CP - Racist Strikes
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: harker RM | Judge: Andrew Torrez Cites not working see OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - Kant NC
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 6 | Opponent: harker RM | Judge: Andrew Torrez Cites broken see OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - Military Pic
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Dulles IC | Judge: Javier Cites not working see OS
11/21/21
4 - ND - T - Just government vs Brazil
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Immac SS | Judge: Shreyaash Das Cites not working see OS
11/21/21
4 - SO - Biotech DA
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westwood ST | Judge: JP Stuckert ====U.S dominance over biotech now BUT Misguided policy cedes control to China. ==== Gupta 6/11 ~"As Washington Ties Pharma's Hands, China Is Leaping Ahead.", Gaurav Gupta, Opinion | America Risks Ceding Its Biotech Dominance to China | Barron's, Barrons, 11 June 2021, www.barrons.com/articles/as-washington-ties-pharmas-hands-china-is-leaping-ahead-51623438808., Gaurav Gupta, a physician, is the founder of the biotechnology investment firm Ascendant BioCapital.~Lex AKu There should be no doubt that we are living at the dawn of a golden
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 diseases
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 A continuing refrain from Washington in recent years has been that the United States
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~ Since World War II, the United States has had a military second to none
AND
to its military dominance than it has for at least a quarter century.
9/18/21
4 - SO - CP - Distribution
Tournament: Valley RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage EM | Judge: Gordon, Brixz, Gonzaba The United States federal government should: - substantially increase production and global distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine, specifically providing all necessary vaccines to India and South Africa, and - cooperate with allies to achieve increased production and global distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine. - reduce IP for all other medicines.
Tournament: Valley RR | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Holden, Jared Burke Counterplan text: Member states of the WTO ought to reduce IP protections for medicines pertaining to the covid vaccine.
9/24/21
4 - SO - DA - Counterfeit Drugs
Tournament: Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mabel Rieger | Judge: Breigh Cites not working see OS
10/16/21
4 - SO - DA - Innovation vs Biocolonialism
Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Octas | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Danielle, David, Herrera Cites not working see osource
10/18/21
4 - SO - Saudi Relations CP
Tournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Southlake Carrol EP | Judge: Gordon Krauss CItes r not working for this round
9/19/21
4 - SO - T Medicine
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Seqouia AS | Judge: Sarena Lu, Gordon Krauss, Ishan Rereddy Interpretation – topical affirmatives must defend reduction of intellectual property rights for medicines
Violation – Data exclusivity are not IPP for medicine. Thrasher 21 Thrasher, Rachel. “How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:” Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data-exclusivity-laws-impact-drug-prices/. Lex AKo Data exclusivity is AND of generic products.
Clinical trials are a study for medicine to then get protected, but not medicine themselves Review Institutional Review, "Clinical Trials," https://www.phrma.org/policy-issues/Research-Development/Clinical-TrialsLex AKo A clinical trial AND in clinical trials. Vote Neg – 1 Limits – their model justifies defending ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION outside of medicines which – A incentivizes the aff for a race to the margins and pick topics like this aff that have little to no lit base which also guts education. B shifts an unfair prep burden to prep hundreds of affs compared to the generics that the AC has to answer
10/18/21
4 - T - Cant spec Member States
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Seqouia AS | Judge: Sarena Lu, Gordon Krauss, Ishan Rereddy Interpretation: The Member nations of the World Trade Organization refers to all member states acting in accordance with the World Trade Organization, the aff may not defend a subset of “the member nations of the WTO” reducing intellectual property protections for medicines.
This is the most likely interpretation of the topic – why would the topic arbitrarily say WTO member states instead of just “states” if the WTO had nothing to do with it and wasn’t the agent of the aff.
2 “The” denotes totality Sharvy 80 Richard Sharvy (1980). A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 89(4), 607–624. doi:10.2307/2184738 SM Definite Plural Descriptions. AND people in Auckland'.
Standards 1 Limits – you can pick any one of 160+ countries ranging from India to the US to China, Israel, and France and there’s no universal disad since each one has different intellectual property laws and political or public health situations – explodes neg prep and leads to random nation of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible
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. Precision is key – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. 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, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory Evaluate T before 1AR theory – a) norms – we only have a couple months to set T norms but can set 1AR theory norms anytime, b) magnitude – T affects a larger portion of the debate since the aff advocacy determines every speech after it
10/18/21
JF - CP - Indigenous Appropriation
Tournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kate Totz Cites broken - See OS
1/30/22
JF - CP - Starlink
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Tyler Wood See os cites broken
1/29/22
JF - DA - CCP
Tournament: Emory | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Gordon Krauss See os cites broken
1/29/22
JF - DA - Heg
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Tyler Wood See os cites broken
1/29/22
JF - DA - Indigenous Broadband
Tournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kate Totz Cites broken - see OS
1/30/22
JF - NC - Kant
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Tyler Wood See os cites broken
1/29/22
JF - T - Defend policy
Tournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Kate Totz Interp: The AFF must defend policy action in a plan text in the 1AC. "Resolved:" the appropriation of outer space by private entities is "unjust" entails policy action:
2-~--Unjust. Black’s Law The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/ brett What is UNJUST? Contrary to right AND by the laws.
Violation: There’s no plan, they defend the res as a general rule. Prefer:
1-~--Ground-~--absent meeting precise words in the res, we lose all the pre-round prep we did around the resolution, killing neg ground.
2-~--Vagueness-~--debates inevitably involve the AFF defending something, but only our interp lets them to clearly define that from the start. Their model leads to late-breaking debates that destroy ground, for example we won’t know if asteroid mining or space exploration are offense until the 1AR, which skews neg prep.
3-~--Topic ed-~--specific policies teaches lets us go deep into the topic, uniquely important given the evolving character of space law. outweighs bc we only have 2 month topics, and phil ed is solved by free textbooks.
TVA- This aff with a global commons advocacy- allows legit the same aff, and you still center indigenous education
CI bc reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention
DTD to deter future abuse
No RVIs: 1 illogical, you shouldn’t win for being topical,
2 good theory debaters will read abusive positions to bait theory and dump on an RVI
1/30/22
JF - T - Extra T bad
Tournament: Emory | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Grant Brown, Dylan Jones, Henry Eberhart Interpretation: Debaters must only defend the resolution. To clarify – they can only debate the consequences of “Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” Violation: They defend an additional analysis extra analysis as a prior question, central planning, and focus the debate on impacts tangential to the topic which
I’ll read you a line –“we reject the regime of property as the white science of logistics.” That’s some form of extra topicality since they are saying the reject property as a whole.
hold them to everything their evidence says – anything else allows them to read infinite components and shift out of anything they want making it impossible to negate
Standards: 1—Limits and Ground: Adding things outside of the res allows anything to become aff ground—bad because aff can add anything to the resolution and then neg has no predictable ground – also eliminates every neg response to debris/lunar heritage/ptd affs by including every solvency deficit to the resolution in an extra T plan
Procedural Fairness first—a) ballot pic – at the end of the day they care about competition and want their arguments to be flowed which proves they care about competition, if they don’t care about winning then just vote neg. Solves their offense, there is no reason a ballot is key – our interp precludes voting on non-topical affs but not the reading of them b) scope of solvency – one ballot can’t alter subjectivity, but it can rectify skews which means the only impact to a ballot is fairness and resolving skews.
Competing interps – a) you either defend the rez or don’t – there’s no in between. Drop the debater – Changing your advocacy kills NC strat because the 1ac advocacy is the only stasis point for NC offense, anything else moots all clash and fairness.
No impact turns or 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.
1/30/22
JF - T - Framework
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Newtown KS | Judge: David Herrera Cites broken, see OS
2/19/22
JF - T - Nebel
Tournament: TOC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Parker Mitchell Interpretation – the aff may not defend that the appropriation of outer space by a certain set of private entities is unjust.
Entities is a generic bare plural Nebel 20 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. “Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate” Victory Briefs, 19 August 2020. no url AG I agree that AND is not existential.
It applies to this topic – a entities is an existential bare plural bc it has no determiner b The sentence “The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” does not imply “the appropriation of outer space by private and public entities is unjust” Violation – they spec entities in china Standards 1 Limits – they can spec infinite different entities like spaceX, etc.. - that’s supercharged by the ability to spec combinations of types of entities. This takes out functional limits – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of entities, governments, and appropriation. 2 TVA solves – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff – we don’t stop them from reading new FWs, mechanisms or advantages. PICs aren’t aff offense – a it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff being non-T b There’s only a small number of pics on this topic c PICs incentivize them to write better affs that can generate solvency deficits to PICs
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, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
4/23/22
JF - T - Nebel
Tournament: TOC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Parker Mitchell Interpretation – the aff may not defend that the appropriation of outer space by a certain set of private entities is unjust.
Entities is a generic bare plural Nebel 20 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. “Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate” Victory Briefs, 19 August 2020. no url AG I agree that AND is not existential.
It applies to this topic – a entities is an existential bare plural bc it has no determiner b The sentence “The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” does not imply “the appropriation of outer space by private and public entities is unjust” Violation – they spec entities in china Standards 1 Limits – they can spec infinite different entities like spaceX, etc.. - that’s supercharged by the ability to spec combinations of types of entities. This takes out functional limits – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of entities, governments, and appropriation. 2 TVA solves – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff – we don’t stop them from reading new FWs, mechanisms or advantages. PICs aren’t aff offense – a it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff being non-T b There’s only a small number of pics on this topic c PICs incentivize them to write better affs that can generate solvency deficits to PICs
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, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
4/23/22
JF - T - Nebel
Tournament: TOC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Parker Mitchell Interpretation – the aff may not defend that the appropriation of outer space by a certain set of private entities is unjust.
Entities is a generic bare plural Nebel 20 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. “Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate” Victory Briefs, 19 August 2020. no url AG I agree that AND is not existential.
It applies to this topic – a entities is an existential bare plural bc it has no determiner b The sentence “The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” does not imply “the appropriation of outer space by private and public entities is unjust” Violation – they spec entities in china Standards 1 Limits – they can spec infinite different entities like spaceX, etc.. - that’s supercharged by the ability to spec combinations of types of entities. This takes out functional limits – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of entities, governments, and appropriation. 2 TVA solves – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff – we don’t stop them from reading new FWs, mechanisms or advantages. PICs aren’t aff offense – a it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff being non-T b There’s only a small number of pics on this topic c PICs incentivize them to write better affs that can generate solvency deficits to PICs
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, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
4/23/22
JF - T - Nebel
Tournament: TOC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Parker Mitchell Interpretation – the aff may not defend that the appropriation of outer space by a certain set of private entities is unjust.
Entities is a generic bare plural Nebel 20 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. “Indefinite Singular Generics in Debate” Victory Briefs, 19 August 2020. no url AG I agree that AND is not existential.
It applies to this topic – a entities is an existential bare plural bc it has no determiner b The sentence “The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust” does not imply “the appropriation of outer space by private and public entities is unjust” Violation – they spec entities in china Standards 1 Limits – they can spec infinite different entities like spaceX, etc.. - that’s supercharged by the ability to spec combinations of types of entities. This takes out functional limits – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of entities, governments, and appropriation. 2 TVA solves – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff – we don’t stop them from reading new FWs, mechanisms or advantages. PICs aren’t aff offense – a it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff being non-T b There’s only a small number of pics on this topic c PICs incentivize them to write better affs that can generate solvency deficits to PICs
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, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory
4/23/22
JF - Theory - Spec Appropriation
Tournament: Emory | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Gordon Krauss See os cites broken
1/29/22
ND - T - Framework
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Tajiah Our Interpretation is the affirmative should instrumentally defend the resolution – hold the line, CX and the 1AC prove there’s no I-meet – anything new in the 1AR is either extra-T since it includes the non-topical parts of the Aff or effects-T since it’s a future result of the advocacy which both link to our offense. “Resolved” means to enact by law.
Words and Phrases ’64 (Words and Phrases; 1964; Permanent Edition) Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. 1 Predictable limits –absent topical constraints affirmative there is no stasis point for neg preparation which means we can’t predictably research your affirmative since there are thousands of literatures bases you could choose to base your affirmative on. That outweighs – a) you can dedicate 4 years to learning one literature base creating a structural skew to debaters who switch topics every 2 months and b) you can cherry pick advocacies like “racism is bad” which makes contesting the aff psychologically violent and they can always revise their aff to de-link from the few generics that are responsive. 2 Clash – the topic delineates aff and neg ground on an issue that allows in depth engagement while their model creates one-sided monologues. Their model forecloses the ability of intricate debate and advocacy refinement by forcing us into stale generics, since we can’t predictably research the 1ac. These positions don’t test the aff in rigorous ways since they are generic and supposed to apply to every affirmative. That turns the aff – absent rigorous testing of the aff echo chambers that operate within existing structural privilege without self-questioning and refinement of strategies. 3 TVA – defend.a hypoetethical just government as a form of futurism Defend the right to strike for queer workers as a form of resisting violence No impact turns or 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.
11/20/21
ND - T - Spec Enforcement
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Danielle, Sreyaash, Emmiee Interpretation: Debaters must specify how they enforce the unconditional right of workers to strike. 1 Topic lit – enforcement is the core question of the topic and there's no consensus on normal means so you must spec. Weiss
2. Strikes, Lockouts, and AND been hotly contested.
This acts as a resolvability standard. Debate has to make sense and be comparable for the judge to make a decision which means it's an independent voter and outweighs.
2 Stable advocacy – 1AR clarification delinks neg positions that prove why enforcement in a certain instance is bad by saying it isn't their method of enforcement – wrecks neg ballot access and kills in depth clash – CX doesn't check since it kills 1NC construction pre-round since I don't know advocacy till in round, and judges do not flow cross ex so its not verifiable.
Fairness- consittutive of comp activites, args presume
DTD – drop the arg doesn’t make sense in the context of the shell, otherwise you can shift into anything.
No RVI’s- a) 1AR can go all in on a 30 second shell and put us in a massive disadvantage, b) 1AR has 2 speeches to genearte theory vs our one. CI- intervention, collapses, race to the top
1/30/22
SO - CP - Adv vs Evergreening
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Nathan Gong | Judge: Nikita Cites not working See OS
10/16/21
SO - DA - CCP
Tournament: Heart of Texas | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Sam Larson, Castillo, Skylar Cites not working see OS
10/30/21
SO - DA - Innovation Evergreening
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Nathan Gong | Judge: Nikita Cites not working See OS
10/16/21
SO - T - Cant spec medicines
Tournament: Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Saranya Singh | Judge: Panel Cites not working See OS
10/16/21
SO - T - Evergreening
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 6 | Opponent: Ayala AM | Judge: Truman Le Interpretation: Reduce means unconditional and permanent Reynolds 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. *13 The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Violation: Companies can still choose exclusive patent protection and data exclusivity 1NC Feldman 3 Robin Feldman 2-11-2019 "‘One-and-done’ for new drugs could cut patent thickets and boost generic competition" https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/ (Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law, Albert Abramson ’54 Distinguished Professor of Law Chair, and Director of the Center for Innovation)SidK + Elmer I believe that one period of protection should be enough. We should make the legal changes necessary to prevent companies from building patent walls and piling up mountains of rights. This could be accomplished by a “one-and-done” approach for patent protection. Under it, a drug would receive just one period of exclusivity, and no more. The choice of which “one” could be left entirely in the hands of the pharmaceutical company, with the election made when the FDA approves the drug. Perhaps development of the drug went swiftly and smoothly, so the remaining life of one of the drug’s patents is of greatest value. Perhaps development languished, so designation as an orphan drug or some other benefit would bring greater reward. The choice would be up to the company itself, based on its own calculation of the maximum benefit. The result, however, is that a pharmaceutical company chooses whether its period of exclusivity would be a patent, an orphan drug designation, a period of data exclusivity (in which no generic is allowed to use the original drug’s safety and effectiveness data), or something else — but not all of the above and more. Consider Suboxone, a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone for treating opioid addiction. The drug’s maker has extended its protection cliff eight times, including obtaining an orphan drug designation, which is intended for drugs that serve only a small number of patients. The drug’s first period of exclusivity ended in 2005, but with the additions its protection now lasts until 2024. That makes almost two additional decades in which the public has borne the burden of monopoly pricing, and access to the medicine may have been constrained. Implementing a one-and-done approach in conjunction with FDA approval underscores the fact that these problems and solutions are designed for pharmaceuticals, not for all types of technologies. That way, one-and-done could be implemented through legislative changes to the FDA’s drug approval system, and would apply to patents granted going forward. One-and-done would apply to both patents and exclusivities. A more limited approach, a baby step if you will, would be to invigorate the existing patent obviousness doctrine as a way to cut back on patent tinkering. Obviousness, one of the five standards for patent eligibility, says that inventions that are obvious to an expert or the general public can’t be patented. Either by congressional clarification or judicial interpretation, many pile-on patents could be eliminated with a ruling that the core concept of the additional patent is nothing more than the original formulation. Anything else is merely an obvious adaptation of the core invention, modified with existing technology. As such, the patent would fail for being perfectly obvious. Even without congressional action, a more vigorous and robust application of the existing obviousness doctrine could significantly improve the problem of piled-up patents and patent walls. Pharmaceutical companies have become adept at maneuvering through the system of patent and non-patent rights to create mountains of rights that can be applied, one after another. This behavior lets drug companies keep competitors out of the market and beat them back when they get there. We shouldn’t be surprised at this. Pharmaceutical companies are profit-making entities, after all, that face pressure from their shareholders to produce ever-better results. If we want to change the system, we must change the incentives driving the system. And right now, the incentives for creating patent walls are just too great.
Vote neg: 1—Limits—there are dozens of conditions that the aff could use to justify offsets in expansion: manufacturing, innovation, distribution, etc—makes NEG prep impossible. 2—Ground—they don’t result in a tangible change to a world without IP Protections, unless the conditions are triggered—wrecks DA ground predicated on IPR good
No RVI’s – illogical to win for meeting the burden of being topical, and encourages unfair affs to bait out T arguments and go for the RVI
10/31/21
SO - T - Medicine is not
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jalyn Wu Interpretation: The 1AC must defend that WTO Member states ought to eliminate IP for medicines Violation: They defend music Medicine cure diseases Kids health https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/meds.html Medicines are chemicals or compounds used to cure, halt, or prevent disease; ease symptoms; or help in the diagnosis of illnesses. Advances in medicines have enabled doctors to cure many diseases and save lives. Meriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine
a substance or preparation used in treating disease 1 Precision – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which a means they’re not within the topic which is a voter for jurisdiction since you can only vote affirmative on the resolution and this debate never should have happened, b they’re unpredictable and impossible to engage in so we always lose
2 TVA – Defend reduction of IP for indigenous MEDICINES. Westwood AG, Sage MP affs are examples. 3 limits – expanding the topic to music allows for infinte affs, things such as ‘letting family members visit’ ‘soft bed technology’ ‘tvs in hospital rooms’. Destroys core generics like innovation which are exclusive to disease curing – core of the topic is about proprietary information. Fairness- consittutive of comp activites, args presume