| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | A Policy Debater | A Policy Judge |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Lake Highland Prep YA | Rao, Anand |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Montville AM | Joshi, Animesh |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | American Heritage Broward NR | Waldman, Ben |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Byram Hills AK | Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Contact Info |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand 1AC - Data Exclusivity |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Joshi, Animesh 1AC - Pandemics |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben 1AC - Virtue Ethics AMEC Theory |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar 1AC - Kant ACC |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 -- Contact InfoTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Hey, I'm Vik -- pronouns he/him/hisYou can reach me by:Email -- vmaan03@gmail.com | 8/6/21 |
0 -- Content WarningsTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge I will always give content warnings before reading any potentially triggering positions, however, if you have any specific accommodations or concerns please let me know before the round. For me personally, please have a trigger warning for descriptions of ableist violence. That being said, for those who read long underviews please be straight up during cross-ex about short theoretical arguments (especially exempted ones that are not in the doc). I will do the same | 8/6/21 |
0 -- DisclosureTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions, on the page with their name and the school they attend, on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki on open source with highlighting after the round in which they read them.-- 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. | 8/6/21 |
0 -- NavigationTournament: All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Round: Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge 0 -- Contact Info/Navigation/Updates1 -- Theory Interpretations2 -- K Generics or FWsSEPTOCT -- September/October TopicNOVDEC -- November/December TopicJANFEB -- January/February TopicMARAPR -- March/April Topic | 8/6/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory HegTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand Reject 1AR Theory: a~ double bind – Either you auto accept all responses to 2NR standards and they auto win since I can't respond, or you intervene to give 2AR credence. They’ll say it’s inevitable but it’s a sliding scale. Inevitable resolvability or intervention collapses to reasonability | 9/18/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Joshi, Animesh Reject 1AR Theory: a~ double bind – Either you auto accept all responses to 2NR standards and they auto win since I can't respond, or you intervene to give 2AR credence. They’ll say it’s inevitable but it’s a sliding scale. Inevitable resolvability or intervention collapses to reasonability – which allows for substance ed and friv theory with no counter interp offense b~ infinite abuse in the context of aff abuse doesn’t make sense since you can read 1ac theory and uplayer with other 1ar offs like Ks and it’s not infinite we only have 7 mins c~ 7-6, 2-1 skew proves its always skewed to the aff d~ they can blow up dropped arguments in the next speech and I don’t have the chance to frame them out but they can which means only dropped arguments for them are game over – turns infinite abuse. | 9/18/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben Reject 1AR theory – 2-1 speech skew favors 2ar persuasion and | 9/18/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v4Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Triples | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar No 1ar theory – a)7-6, 2-1 skew proves its always skewed to the aff, b) resolvability double bind – either the judge has to intervene to decide whether the 2ar’s answers to the 2nr’s Counter interp are sufficient or they auto accept every answer and you auto win. | 9/19/21 |
1 -- Theory -- New AffsTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand Interpretation—the aff must disclose the plan text and standard text 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki, over message or messenger.Violation—they didn’t - ssThe standard is prep and clash - Two internal links-a) Neg prep: The AC framework controls the direction of a round – even if its whole rez, my prep drastically differs based on a util AC, topical K aff, or a burden/tricks aff. 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 work best against the affirmative and cut and research their applications to the affirmative. Exacerbated by the fact that philosophy can be dense and hard to fully understand with a few cross ex questions absent any pre-round prep. They also get months to frontline their one aff, while I coming into the round guessing—o/w since their already structurally ahead,b) Aff quality-disclosing the framework text allows preliminary research into the framework preventing frameworks from winning just because they are terribly confusing and not a philosophy that policymakers would actually use-if they affirmatives framework would be crushed with 20 minutes of research then it does not deserve to win. 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.c) Drop them for lying – they said it’s a new aff but it isn’t this entire aff is disclosed on their teammates wiki which means its not new. Lying is a voter for academic integrity.D~ Voter:Fairness and education are voters – debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking.Drop the debater – a) DTA is dropping the aff since it indicts the way you’ve read the advocacy, 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) norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms, b) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, c) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory | 9/18/21 |
2 -- Hijack -- EmotivismTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel Hijack 2The aff collapses to emotivism – a) affect terminates in the normative conclusion of the expression of desire since the aff just makes an ontological claim about the world but that materializes itself in terms of expressions of those desire in every aspect, including linguistic constructs like the resolutional statement b) normative potential of the subject to express their affect which means emotivism is the only way to generate obligations from your framework. | 9/19/21 |
SEPTOCT -- DA -- BiotechTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand 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 AND the U.S. risks these technologies being mastered by Chinese companies. The plan chills American biomed innovation, ceding control to China – also can’t solve future diseasesPaulsen 7/9 ~ERIK PAULSEN: We can save the world with our vaccines — without surrendering our IP to China," Bakersfield Californian, https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/erik-paulsen-we-can-save-the-world-with-our-vaccines-without-surrendering-our-ip-to/article'b0b87692-df61-11eb-9a13-d7fa02eefaee.html~~ Lex AKu AND the only way to keep China at bay and American innovators at work. Biotech leadership key to future military primacy.Moore 21 ~(Scott Moore is a political scientist and administrator at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of a forthcoming book, "How China Shapes the Future," on China’s role in public goods and emerging technologies.) 8-8-2021, "In Biotech, the Industry of the Future, the U.S. Is Way Ahead of China," Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/biotech-industry-future-us-way-ahead-china~~ Lex AKu AND dramatically reduce the risk of sophisticated bioweapons development in the decades to come. Heg solves arms races, land grabs, rogue states, and great power war.Brands 18 ~Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments." American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump." Page 129-133~ Recut Lex AKu AND to its military dominance than it has for at least a quarter century. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- DA -- Counterfeit DrugsTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand Strong IP protections allows for counterfeit tracking, detailed product info and mobile laboratory testing which helps keep fakes from entering the market.Fifarma 4/27 ~Latin American Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry created in 1962. We represent 16 research-based biopharmaceutical companies and 11 local associations dedicated to discovering and developing innovative, quality and safe health products and services that improve the lives of patients in Latin America and the Caribbean and advocate for patient-centric, sustainable health systems characterized by high regulatory standards and ethical principles. ~"This Is How We Fight Counterfeit Medicines with Intellectual Property." Fifarma. Fifarma, Apr. 2021. Web. 27 Aug. 2021.~ Lex VM AND . Thus, technology is becoming an important element in fighting this problem. Counterfeit drugs gut innovation.BPI 08 ~Bpi Contributor, "IP Strategies to Combat Distribution of Counterfeit Drugs", BioProcess International, 3-1-2008, https://bioprocessintl.com/business/intellectual-property/ip-strategies-to-combat-distribution-of-counterfeit-drugs-182314/, accessed: 9-10-2021.~ Lex VM and Lex AKu AND and/or raise the already high cost of pharmaceutical development and commercialization. Organizational costs incentivize terrorist groups to fund themselves through counterfeit medicine – examples from Lebanon and South America prove.Cannon 15 ~Douglas T. Cannon, War Through Pharmaceuticals: How Terrorist Organizations Are Turning to Counterfeit Medicine to Fund Their Illicit Activity, 47 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 343 (2015) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol47/iss1/23~~ Lex VM Recut by Lex AKo AND is the possibility of terrorists being smuggled in via the Mexican border.100 Their own evidence says counterfeits kill millions. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- KantTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep YA | Judge: Rao, Anand The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism - substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be, this means experience may be generally useful but should not be the basis for ethical action.Practical Reason is that procedure. To ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding.Moral law must be universal—any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with liberty.Freedom justifies property rights – which is conceptual and centered around the agent.Merges 11 ~Merges, Robert P. "Will and Object in the World of IP." Justifying Intellectual Property, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 72-74. ISBN: 0674049489,9780674049482. Found on Libgen.~ Lex VM AND Kant’s approach to property is marvelously relevant to the era of intellectual property. Prefer –1~ freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place.I contend that reducing IP protections for medicines impedes on manufacturers’ abilities to set and pursue ends –1~ Patents protect private companies.Na 19 ~Blake Na, "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry", Chicago-Kent | Journal of Intellectual Property, 4-19-2019, https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/protecting-intellectual-property-rights-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, accessed: 8-24-2021.~ Lex VM AND , pharmaceutical companies often face difficulty with the high costs and uncertainty of litigation That negates – A~ Promise breaking – states promised legally binding IP protections to companies who might not have otherwise developed medicines – the aff is a unilateral violation of that contract. B~ That’s a form of restricting the free economic choices of individuals. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- Kant v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Joshi, Animesh The meta-ethic is procedural moral realism - substantive realism holds that moral truths exist independently of that in the empirical world. Prefer procedural realism –~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Naturalistic fallacy – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be, this means experience may be generally useful but should not be the basis for ethical action.Practical Reason is that procedure. To ask for why we should be reasoners concedes its authority since it uses reason – anything else is nonbinding.Moral law must be universal—any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with liberty.Freedom justifies property rights – which is conceptual and centered around the agent.Merges 11 ~Merges, Robert P. "Will and Object in the World of IP." Justifying Intellectual Property, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 72-74. ISBN: 0674049489,9780674049482. Found on Libgen.~ Lex VM AND Kant’s approach to property is marvelously relevant to the era of intellectual property. Prefer –1~ freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place.I contend that reducing IP protections for medicines impedes on manufacturers’ abilities to set and pursue ends –1~ Patents protect private companies.Na 19 ~Blake Na, "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry", Chicago-Kent | Journal of Intellectual Property, 4-19-2019, https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/protecting-intellectual-property-rights-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, accessed: 8-24-2021.~ Lex VM AND , pharmaceutical companies often face difficulty with the high costs and uncertainty of litigation That negates – A~ Promise breaking – states promised legally binding IP protections to companies who might not have otherwise developed medicines – the aff is a unilateral violation of that contract. B~ That’s a form of restricting the free economic choices of individuals.2~ IP is a reflection of our will and a form of property.Merges 11 ~Merges, Robert P. "Will and Object in the World of IP." Justifying Intellectual Property, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 76-78. ISBN: 0674049489,9780674049482. Found on Libgen.~ Lex VM AND very abstract for Kant, and can of course therefore include IPRs.35 3~ Neg contention choice – otherwise they can concede all of our work on framework and just read 4 minutes of turns which moots the four minutes of framework debate that the 1NC did giving them a massive advantage and limits phil debate. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- NIBsTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben 1~ member is "a part or organ of the body, especially a limb" but an organ can’t have obligations2~ of is to "expressing an age" but the rez doesn’t delineate a length of time3~ the is "denoting a disease or affliction" but the WTO isn’t a disease4~ to is to "expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)" but the rez doesn’t have a location5~ reduce is to "(of a person) lose weight, typically by dieting" but IP doesn’t have a body to lose weight.6~ for is "in place of" but medicines aren’t replacing IP.7~ medicine is "(especially among some North American Indian peoples) a spell, charm, or fetish believed to have healing, protective, or other power" but you can’t have IP for a spell. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- SkepTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben Presumption and permissibility negates – a) statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted c) the aff has to prove an obligation which means lack of that obligation negates d) resolved in the resolution indicates they proactively did something, to negate that means that they aren’t resolved.Skep is true and negates –Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa But justice, however unpresentable it may be, doesn't wait.· It is that which must not wait. To be direct, simple and brief, let us say this: a just decision is always required immediately, "right away." It cannot furnish itself with infinite information and the unlimited knowledge of conditions, rules or hypothetical imperatives that could justify it. And even if it did have all that at its disposal, even if it did give itself the time, all the time and all the necessary facts about the matter, the moment of decision, as such, always remains a finite moment of urgency and precipitation, since it must not be the consequence or the effect of this theoretical or historical knowledge, of this reflection or this deliberation, since it always marks the interruption of the juridico- or ethico- or politico-cognitive deliberation that precedes it, that must precede it. The instant of decision is a madness, says Kierkegaard. This is particularly true of the instant of the just decision that must rend time and defy dialectics. It is a madness. Even if time and prudence, the patience of knowledge and the mastery of conditions were hypothetically unlimited, the decision would be structurally finite, however late it came, decision of urgency and precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule Affirming negates.Paraphrasing Mcnamara ‘06, Paul, 2-7-2006, "Deontic Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," No Publication, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/index.html~~#4.3 Massa Premise 1—If the aff is true, it ought to be the case that members of the WTO should reduce IP protections.Premise 2—It ought to be the case that the WTO reduce IP protections if and only if the members have IP protections. This is because standard logic would necessitate transferring the obligation predicate onto its necessary condition.Thus, premise 3—if the aff is true, it ought to be the case that the members of the WTO has IP protections. This logically follows from "if P is Q and P is Q only if N, then N."External world skep is true.Neta, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. And, any account of morality is regressive since it predicates one universal rule on the existence of another moral rule. Since every human chain of reasoning must be finite according to our finite nature, such a reasoning process must terminate in a rule for which no reason can be given. | 9/18/21 |
SEPTOCT -- Turns -- KantTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Triples | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar FramingThe state is obligated to prioritize freedom.Otteson 09 ~(James R., professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism," The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter, 2009~ TDI AND in the absence of invasions or threats of invasions, it is inactive. Contention1~ Copyright protection key for free market—turns case. Reducing protection harms agents’ ability to set and pursue ends of access and use of works.Hartline 13 (Devlin Hartline, 11-14-2013, "Copyright is Still Essential to a Free Market in Creative Works," Center for Intellectual Property x Innovation Policy, https://cip2.gmu.edu/2013/11/14/copyright-is-still-essential-to-a-free-market-in-creative-works/) CH AND market economy for creative works, overlooks a critical function of copyright protection. 2~ Only way a monopoly could happen is if there is no substitutes or competition in the market – Me Too Drugs prove that’s not the case.Schultz 14 (Mark Schultz, 2-24-2014, "A free market perspective on intellectual property rights," American Enterprise Institute - AEI, https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-property/free-market-perspective-intellectual-property-rights/) CH AND rights are constrained by the antitrust laws in how those rights are exercised. 3~ 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 AND United States, and even a Categorical Imperative that we must do it! 4~ there is a distinction between action and omission –No act/omission distinction is infinitely regressive because it means that you are culpable for everything since you are technically aware of anything. That negates – omitting is a morally permissible action to avoid culpability, you can choose to omit from any ethical action which means the squo is ok and theres no moral obligation to do the aff. And, No aff solvency for turns – the aff reduces protections rather than eliminating them which still allows for freedom violations – Presume neg.5~ IP is a form of propertyZeidman 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 AND lose their contrary argument that private conversations are personal property to be protected. 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 AND that limit intellectual property ownership or introduce more government regulation than is required. 6~ Patents protect private companies.Na 19 ~Blake Na, "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry", Chicago-Kent | Journal of Intellectual Property, 4-19-2019, https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/protecting-intellectual-property-rights-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/, accessed: 8-24-2021.~ Lex VM AND , pharmaceutical companies often face difficulty with the high costs and uncertainty of litigation 7~ IP is property in the same way our health and labor are too.D’Amato 14 ~David S. D’Amato, David S. D’Amato is an attorney, a regular opinion contributor at The Hill, and an expert policy advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute. His writing has appeared in Forbes, Newsweek, The American Spectator, the Washington Examiner, Investor’s Business Daily, The Daily Caller, RealClearPolicy, Townhall, CounterPunch, and many others, as well as at nonpartisan, nonpartisan policy organizations such as the American Institute for Economic Research, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Institute for Economic Affairs, the Foundation for Economic Education, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, among others. He earned a JD from New England School of Law and an LLM in Global Law and Technology from Suffolk University Law School. He lives and writes in Chicago. "Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property: Rothbard, Tucker, Spooner, and Rand", Libertarianism.org, 5-28-2014, https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-rothbard-tucker-spooner-rand, accessed: 8-25-2021.~ Lex VM AND depends fundamentally upon something that cannot be seen or touched, human effort. 8~ The goal of IP and physical property are the same. Arguing a distinction is misguided.Schultz 14 ~Mark Schultz, "A free market perspective on intellectual property rights", American Enterprise Institute - AEI, 2-24-2014, https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-property/free-market-perspective-intellectual-property-rights/, accessed: 8-25-2021.~ Lex VM AND to own the fruits of his labor to secure his life and liberty. 9~ IP is a reflection of our will and a form of property.Merges 11 ~Merges, Robert P. "Will and Object in the World of IP." Justifying Intellectual Property, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 76-78. ISBN: 0674049489,9780674049482. Found on Libgen.~ Lex VM AND very abstract for Kant, and can of course therefore include IPRs.35 10~ Reducing IP allows the government to produce drugs and take more taxes for public company’s drug RandD.Calsyn et al. 20 ~Maura Calsyn and Thomas Waldrop, "How the Next Administration Can Lower Drug Prices", Center for American Progress, 9-17-2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2020/09/17/490140/next-administration-can-lower-drug-prices/, accessed: 8-27-2021.~ Lex VM AND time Medicare or other government health care programs pay for a prescription drug. 11~ 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. | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
|