| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | A Policy Debater | A Policy Judge |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 3 | Southlake Carroll EP | Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | American Heritage Broward NR | Hatfield, Wyatt |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Princeton Independent DR | Scopa, Stephen |
|
|
| |
| Mission San Jose SS | 6 | Mid America Cup | Anderson, Sam |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Lake Highland Prep YA | Rao, Anand |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Montville AM | Joshi, Animesh |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Byram Hills AK | Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Scripps Ranch AS | Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | American Heritage Broward NR | Waldman, Ben |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Contact Info |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 1AC - Democracy |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt 1AC - Virtue Ethics Must concede PP TT |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 1AC - Evergreening |
| Mission San Jose SS | 6 | Opponent: Mid America Cup | Judge: Anderson, Sam 1AC - Covid |
| 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 | Triples | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Mohan, Eshwar 1AC - Kant ACC |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel 1AC - Lorax |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben 1AC - Virtue Ethics AMEC Theory |
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 -- a1lexdebateteam@gmail.com | 9/29/21 |
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 | 9/29/21 |
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. | 9/29/21 |
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 | 9/29/21 |
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 | 9/24/21 |
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 -- 1AR Theory Heg v5Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 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. Intervention ow since it takes the round out of the debaters hands. If they win they get 1ar theory only one 1AR shell – a) strat skew – multiple 1ar shells incentivize a bunch of short 1ar shells so that the 2nr can’t answer all of them in depth since we only have like 1 minute on each shell and then they get to collapse to whatever we undercovered for 3 minutes giving them a massive time advantage on the theory debate. NC theory first – our abuse is justified in the context of your abuse – i.e we needed to be abusive to even the playing field since you were abusive first. | 9/25/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v6Tournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 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. Intervention ow since it takes the round out of the debaters hands. That also means reasonability on 1ar theory since some level of intervention is inevitable so it’s net better to focus on things like substance education, Drop the argument on 1ar theory – they can initiate offensive drop the debater theory in the aff and in the 1ar while no judge would vote on 2n theory on severance. | 10/28/21 |
1 -- Theory -- CX ChecksTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash A. Interpretation: The Aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1ac. In other words, the aff may not run cx checks.B. Violation:1. Theory recourse – CX checks (a) causes sidestepping, encouraging you to have hidden abusive args since I either call you out on it in cx and you kick it or I concede it and you win, which makes debates innocuous and is empirically confirmed with Jake Steirn, (b) causes ambiguity – what constitutes a sufficient "check" is unclear. Even if we isolate the abusive practice in CX, the aff can still go for the arg and establish new parameters for checking, and (c) prep skew – even if you don’t kick the abuse, you get extra time to prep my interp since you know what I’ll indict. That gives you nearly double the time to prep and creates irreciprocal burdens. Theory recourse is key to any voter since it ensures I can check back abusive strategies.2. Strat Skew – This skews my strategy because a) I have to waste valuable cross-x time clarifying abusive argument of asking questions that set up a coherent strategy in the NC, b) I am not allowed to run theory if I think of a potentially abusive thing in the AC during my speech. This also link turns all other theory arguments since theoretical benefits are predicated on the ability to run theory in the first place.D~ Voter:Fairness and education are voters – debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking.Drop the debater – a) they have a 7-6 rebuttal advantage and the 2ar to make args I can’t respond to, b) it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm.Use competing interps – a) reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention since we don’t know your bs meter, b) collapses to competing interps – we justify 2 brightlines under an offense defense paradigm just like 2 interps.No RVIs – a) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair – it’s a litmus test for engaging in substance, b) norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory | 10/28/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Disclose Pre-RoundTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel A~ Interpretation: The affirmative must, upon flipping for sides, tell the negative what specific affirmative position they will be reading, within five minutes of flipping for sides.B~ Violation: They didn’t tell us the Aff. – ss in docC~ Net Benefits:1~ Research – disclosure increases research and gets rid of anti-educational arguments because debaters are forced to prepare cases knowing that people will have answers AND people get the opportunity to research answers to disclosed cases. Not telling us the Aff makes focused research impossible because we won’t know where to focus pre round, and don’t have any incentive to go deep and do research if we know they can read any number of possible positions2~ Clash – Disclosure is the best method for increasing clash in debates because it allows debaters to substantively engage positions rather than relying on sketchy tricks to avoid the discussion. It also allows for more specific clash because debaters can see specific arguments disclosed instead of trying to link generic arguments in.3~ Reciprocity —- pairings just came out, and there isn’t much time to prep —- forcing us to split between a bunch of different positions while the Aff knows for sure which they’re reading makes it slanted in their favor by encouraging them to go deep while we can’t4~ No Aff offense for disclosure bad —- they posted cites on the wiki for a TON of different Affs but just wouldn’t tell us which Aff they were reading —- the only offense was us not being able to anticipate or prep the Aff pre round because they forced us to split our time in too many directions | 9/20/21 |
1 -- Theory -- NCMTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen Interpretation: All debater’s theory shells must operate through NCM, or the norm-setting model, not the abuse model. To clarify, an interpretation under NCM necessitates that a proposed interpretation would produce better norms for debate than the mutually exclusive counter-interp and that those norms should be endorsed. MassaThe interpretation generates standards offense – so meeting the standards is nonsense if they don’t meet the interp.A violation says the rule is not a set norm in the debate community. This is done by showing the opposing debater is in violation of the norm. But, showing the opponent’s action is in violation of the rule is unnecessary if the proposed rule is not a set norm in debate.Violation – It’s preemptive.1~ No RVI – under the NCM, any net beneficial interpretation is sufficient to warrant a ballot.2~ Possible 1AR interps – they have justified all 1ar theory as a practice which doesn’t constrain them to particular interps and means they’ve justified a model of debate that allows them to propose rule-less interpretations that indict negative arguments rather than set rules.3~ Reasonability – NCM constrains theory to who defends a competitive model of debate to evaluate 2 conflicting norms. Reasonable practices aren’t norms – they’re exceptions to rules.4~ You say standards violations are sufficient to evaluate theory – spirit of the interpretation allows debaters to meet offense but does not require a stable norm to attach.And, people’s theory shells currently do not operate under NCM – which is proven by judge paradigms that say theory is only legit if it applies in-round.Vote Neg –1~ Norming – NCM means endorsement of the debater who promotes the best competitive norm, but punishment models of theory do not necessitate comparative models that are evaluated equally as initial interpretations. NCM forces debaters to commit to their theory norm which increases the quality of norms because no one would defend a norm that would get crushed and warrant a loss. Norming outweighs and is a voter – MassaA~ Forces both debaters to engage in the issue and debate both sides which is an extension of your interpretation and means any reason why IRA is good is a reason to prefer NCM.B~ All voters beg the question of what norms or interpretations are consistent with their impacts. For example, fairness and education are nonsensical without a norm that constitutes it.C~ Resolvability – Specifying the exact norm gives judges a delineation of what advocacies to compare and if each debater is consistent with that norm. Otherwise it’s intervention which is an infinite in-round violation because it takes the round of the debater’s hands.D~ It’s constitutive of the voter – to make appeals to fairness requires the debate space ought to defend it as a norm.Voters – If you win that my model of debate is bad, the counter-interpretation would not be an RVI. Abuse models imply that you vote for a debater who broke a rule. Proving that you may engage in some practice is insufficient under that model as there is no proactive violation to a rule sufficient to warrant a ballot. Reasonability is also our violation because it does not necessitate comparative norms. Dropping the debater is implied by our interp because you would vote us up for endorsing the better model of debate. | 9/25/21 |
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 |
1 -- Theory -- New ROTBs HegTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash No new 1ar ROTBs - (a) restarting the ROB debate in the 1ar puts you at a 7-6 advantage on the framing debate since I have to propose one in the 1N since 2N arguments are new – putting it in the aff makes it 13-13 (b) you have one more speech to contest my ROB and weigh, I can only possibly answer your ROB in the 2n but you can do comparative weighing in the 2ar (c) I can only read a ROB in the 1N so you should read it in your first speech as well – that’s definitionally an equal burden. | 10/28/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Open SourceTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them, 30 minutes before the round.Violation – they don’t – the lorax was disclosed as a blank doc. - ss1~ Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs who can’t bypass paywalled articles.Louden 10 – Allan D. Louden, professor of Communication at Wake Forest ("Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century" Wake Forest National Debate Conference. IDEA, 2010) AND multiple professional teaching positions, such as those discussed earlier in the chapter. 2~ Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat | 9/20/21 |
2 -- FW -- Determinism vs UtilTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 1. Split Brains: If I were to take a test and then swap bodies with a classmate, we aren’t inclined to believe I’d choose the same answers. This means my decisions are keen to brain chemistry.2. States of Affairs: states of affairs are only relevant due to the infinite amount of personal identities which would warrant why either a) every action is determined by the nature of our being rather than persons b) infinite amount of actions taken by individuals always invalidate the goals of states of affairs.That Negates:1. If Determinism is true, then an ethical calculus is incoherent since actions will happen inevitably if nature dictates.2. Proactive actions are unjustifiable since everything would just revolve around the unpredictability of an end which means polarization.3. The resolution necessitates a right, but consequentialism only cares about end states which means that consequentialism means you vote neg since otherwise it would rely on it’s own principle for it’s justification. | 10/28/21 |
2 -- FW -- Permissibility vs UtilTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 1. Infinite chain of action. There are infinite end states to each action that I may take meaning we can never know if it is a good or bad action as per util because it could possibly result in many ways. For example, util would tell me to save 2 babies rather than one but there’s a chance that baby turns out to be Hitler in which case util would condemn my actions. This means any action is permissible because of the unpredictability of our end states.2. Util evaluates end states, not the way to achieve those ends states. But if the way we obtain an end is through an action and util ignores the action taken, it ignores the actions taken and cares only about the end states so technically any action is permissible under util because it wouldn’t condemn the action it would condemn the end that the action entails.Proves util triggers permissibility – | 10/28/21 |
2 -- Hijack -- AffectTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel Affect theory collapses to skep – | 9/20/21 |
2 -- Hijack -- EmotivismTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel The 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. | 9/20/21 |
2 -- K -- UtilTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen The safety of the space is prima facie – we don’t know who’s winning if people can’t engage. Anything that doesn’t immediately denounce atrocities excludes people who have and can experience them.Teehan Ryan Teehan ~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. Massa AND to ask yourselves whether you can justify making debate unsafe for certain people. Utilitarian calculus fails to account for moral atrocities.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics Massa AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. Util excludes people who can’t feel happiness, which results in their manipulation.Peter. "Utilitarianism Is Unjust." On Philosophy, N.P, 8 Sept. 2007, onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/utilitarianism-is-unjust/. Massa AND a reason to systematically favor happiness over a balance of Zeb and Geb. The alt is to vote neg – it’s as simple as not to vibe with racism: as an educator it’s your job to dismiss racist discourse that kills the spirit of minority debaters. | 9/25/21 |
2 -- NC -- ExperienceTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 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.Every moral theory begins with modus ponens – when we make claims about the natural world and how we ought to exist within it, it is necessary to be correct about assumptions. If we made the claim that the Bald King of France ought to bake a cake, that statement is a contingent truth predicated on if the King is bald and is actually a King. That means it is necessary to justify outside assumptions on logic because we can’t universally apply an illogical belief.1. Moral questions take time to answer – ethics have been disputed for thousands of years yet we haven’t figured it out. Start from the bottom and questioning everything we already know about ethics as a precondition since we’re obviously wrong about something.2. Theory – there are infinite ways something can be false, which pushes you to the limit of logical ones. Defending theories with illogical assumptions guts predictability since any possible wrong thing can emerge that we aren’t prepared to contest.Thus, the standard is consistency with epistemic and experiential authenticity. Negates under worlds framing – if we win we can create obligations then we’re a better world and you can’t create any to prescribe action.Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa AND it came, decision of urgency and precipitation, acting in the night of non-knowledge and non-rule And, either it’s the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there’s no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other’s actions, and will cancel out the obligations.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, in order to discover something, it must not be known, but in order to know to discover something, it must already be known – this makes the quest for knowledge incomprehensible and thus impossibleAnd, 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. | 10/28/21 |
2 -- Paradox -- SoritesTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Georges, Joseph, Tom, Neville To go anywhere, you must go halfway first, and then you must go half of the remaining distance, and half of the remaining distance, and so forth to infinity. Thus, motion is impossible because it necessitates traversing an infinite number of spaces in a finite amount of time – vote negative. Your interpretation assumes a transition in bodily energy that's rationally impossible – no impact to the aff. | 10/28/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-TestingTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel 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 get infinite pre-round prep since I should be able to compensate by choosing – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.Most educational since otherwise we wouldn’t use math or logic to approach topics. Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I’ve met my burden. | 9/20/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-Testing v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen 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 get infinite pre-round prep since I should be able to compensate by choosing – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.They justify substantive skews since there will always be a more correct side of the issue but we compensate for flaws in the lit.Most educational since otherwise we wouldn’t use math or logic to approach topics. Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I’ve met my burden. | 9/25/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-Testing v3Tournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 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 get infinite pre-round prep since I should be able to compensate by choosing – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.They justify substantive skews since there will always be a more correct side of the issue but we compensate for flaws in the lit.Most educational since otherwise we wouldn’t use math or logic to approach topics. Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.a priori’s 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I’ve met my burden. | 10/28/21 |
NOVDEC -- K -- MollowTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Georges, Joseph, Tom, Neville | 10/28/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- NIBsTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash Negate –1~ just means "very recently; in the immediate past" so the rez has already passed.2~ of is to "expressing an age" but the rez doesn’t delineate a length of time.3~ recognize is to "Officially regard (a qualification) as valid or proper" but a right isn’t a qualification.4~ to is to "expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)" but the rez doesn’t have a location.5~ right is to "conforming to facts or truth" rez doesn’t specify what workers are right about.6~ Strike is defined as to delete something rez doesn’t spec what to delete. 7~ Workers is defined as a "any of the sexually underdeveloped and usually sterile members of a colony of social ants, bees, wasps, or termites that perform most of the labor and protective duties of the colony" you can’t give a right to insects nor can we know if they are correct. | 10/28/21 |
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 -- DA -- Innovation v EvergreeningTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen Pharma innovation high now – monetary incentive is the biggest factor.Swagel 21 Phillip L. Swagel, Director of the Congressional budget office 4-xx-2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Congressional Budget Office, https://www.cbo.goc/publication/57126~~#'idTextAnchor020 SJDA AND drugs), and conducting postapproval testing for safety-monitoring or marketing purposes. The affs wholesale attack on secondary patents ruins innovation—-prefer contingencies that solve evergreening.Holman 18 ~Christopher; 9/21/18; Professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, where his primary research focus lies at the intersection of intellectual property and biotechnology; "Why Follow-On Pharmaceutical Innovations Should Be Eligible For Patent Protection," Intellectual property watch, https://www.ip-watch.org/2018/09/21/follow-pharmaceutical-innovations-eligible-patent-protection/~~ Justin AND rather than through what amounts to an attack on the patent system itself. | 9/25/21 |
SEPTOCT -- K -- MollowTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt | 9/25/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- Action TheoryTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton Independent DR | Judge: Scopa, Stephen Permissibility and presumption flow neg: ~A~ Probability, there is one way for a statement to be true and an infinite amount of ways for it to be false ~B~ If I knew nothing about P I would presume both P and not P true, a contradiction ~C~ if every action is permissible then ought not statements like the resolution are incoherent.Moral theories must judge action as a unified whole. If they did not, the separate steps in the chain of action would not be justified. In the process of doing a whole action, the steps are not disconnected, but rather so connected that one interruption would disrupt the entire action.(Rödl, Sebastian. Self-Consciousness, Harvard University Press, 2007) Massa AND aggregate, but a unity of phases. Davidson cannot mark this distinction. Thus, the neg burden is to prove the resolution is an impossible course of action, the aff must prove the converse. Prefer:1. Motivation – Proponents only care about ethical decision making insofar as there is an entity and an action that is coherent enough to achieve that normative end.2. The AC framework collapses: a~ The NC doesn’t deny it – we’re a constraint on action which is sequencing b~ Culpability Assessing: to reflect on your actions, action analysis is necessary – otherwise we would never hold agents accountable for their decisions.3. Theory – if the aff cannot generate an action, it broadens their advocacy to an infinite degree allowing a defense of alternative realities and made up fantasies which we can’t predict.4. Moral theories must be either motivational or non-motivational. Double bind A~ they are non-motivational and won’t be followed, so morality can’t guide action since guides need to be followed or B~ morality is motivational and people will do what it says no matter what so it’s just descriptive of action, not providing an obligation.Contention –1~ The resolution doesn’t indicate who is receiving protection – absent an agent to receive protection, the resolution is incoherent, and the action is impossible because there isn’t a clear way to apply the rule delineated by the resolution itself. All enforcement protocols are outside the wording of the resolution itself, which is the only thing we should be bound by because everything else is arbitrary and unpredictable.2~ The WTO is an intergovernmental organization that regulates and facilitates international trade between nations.~6~ Governments use the organization to establish, revise, and enforce the rules that govern international trade.A~ There res doesn’t specify where the protection is granted – it’s relevant cuz the WTO needs to affect cross-national trade to be a valid action by that agent.B~ Nations who are not part of the WTO do not get protection even if it affects members – they aren’t subject to their jurisdiction which makes the action incoherent because it doesn’t protect anyone and defeats the purpose of the action. Medicines can be produced and distributed by states not a part of the WTO. | 9/25/21 |
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 -- Kant v3Tournament: Mission San Jose SS | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mid America Cup | Judge: Anderson, Sam 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.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 | 9/27/21 |
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. | 9/24/21 |
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 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. | 9/24/21 |
SEPTOCT -- T -- ExtraTournament: Mission San Jose SS | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mid America Cup | Judge: Anderson, Sam Patent waiver is extra topical.Tom Lee 21 (Data and Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum) And Christopher Holt (the Director of Health Care Policy at the American Action Forum), 5/10/21, Intellectual Property, COVID-19 Vaccines, and the Proposed TRIPS Waiver, https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/intellectual-property-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-proposed-trips-waiver/~~#ixzz75KTH1nPx SJEP AND pharmaceutical chemical compounds, and respirators would also be subject to the waiver. | 9/27/21 |
SEPTOCT -- T -- PermanentTournament: Mission San Jose SS | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mid America Cup | Judge: Anderson, Sam Interpretation: Reductions are permanentReynolds 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) AND and Social Security Law, § 101 ~§ 84 under the 1947 act~.) Violation: the COVID enforcement cards talk about a temporary waiveringVote negative for textuality – the actors in the resolution are members of the WTO and evidence from court operates within the WTO’s jurisdiction.~1~ Predictability – the resolution is the stasis point for contestation, anything else would be unpredictable and an unfair prep burden for the negative. Their counterinterp will justify jettisoning any possible aspect of the topic which explodes predictable limits for prep~2~ Topic education – only our interpretation allows for the most nuanced clash pertaining to what parameters in which the actors in the resolution act. Anything else doesn’t actually talk about the topic because it’s not what the actors are allowed to fiat. | 9/27/21 |
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 |
SEPTOCT -- Turns -- Virtue EthicsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt 1NC – Core1~ IP rights are necessary for subject formation – creators are isolated and properly conceived under IP which is a sequencing question to understanding the virtuous nature of agents.Kanning 12 ~Michael A. Kanning (Graduate School at University of South Florida). "A Philosophical Analysis of Intellectual Property: In Defense of Instrumentalism". A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida. January 2012. Accessed 8/22/21. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=andhttpsredir=1andarticle=5290andcontext=etd Xu~ AND in a way that best achieves the goals of the intellectual property system. - That also protects creativity which your ev says creativity is a virtueOpderbeck 07, David W. Opderbeck, Maine Law Review Vol. 59 No.2 (2007) "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)" ~https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/~~ Accessed 8/11/21 NPR AND 85 and "sociability, camaraderie, friendship, cooperation, civic virtue." 2~ IPR is well established under iLaw – it overwhelmingly negates.Osei-Tutu 17 ~Bracketed for G-Lang. Julia Janewa Osei-Tutu (she is the current Editor in Chief of the African Journal of Legal Studies, and one of the founding directors of the Center for International Law and Policy in Africa, Ghanaian-Canadian, Associate Professor of Law @ Florida International University, LL.M. from McGill University, J.D. from Queen’s University, B.A. from the University of Toronto. "Humanizing Intellectual Property: Moving Beyond the Natural Rights Property Focus". Florida International University College of Law. 2017. Accessed 8/24/21. https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353andcontext=faculty'publications Xu~ AND however, that property as a human right is not universally accepted.107 Two impacts –A~ community – Ilaw sets rules and laws that allow one another to be empathetic to one another which is a virtue – otherwise there is no enforcement.B~ promise breaking – form of dishonesty which is a bad virtue – where states promise companies to protect them and then unilaterally lies and breaks it without consent.3~ Reducing protections of IP leads to theft and the free riding of ideas – turns Grimmelmann.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! | 9/25/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/28/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/27/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/20/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/24/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
|