| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | A Policy Debater | A Policy Judge |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Minnetonka BD | Kirkpatrick, Braedon |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Portola AS | Khattak, Muhammad |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | San Mateo YR | Broussard, Austin |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Doubles | Southlake Carroll EPi | Botsch-McGuinn, Sarah, Joshi, Animesh, Nails, Jacob |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 3 | Southlake Carroll EP | Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 2 | American Heritage Broward SS | Georges, Joseph, Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Semis | Carnegie Vanguard SR | Datti, Abhilash, Georges, Joseph, Datel, Amadea |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Durham BG | Arnold, Kristen |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 3 | Aragon ZA | Orlowski, Spencer |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Semis | Strake Jesuit KS | Robinson, Tajaih, Kang, Arjan, Arnold, Kristen |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Octas | Carnegie SR | Panel |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Scarsdale OL | Stuckert, James |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Quarters | Strake Jesuit NW | Dua, Raunak, Robinson, Tajaih, Taylor-Ward, Nigel |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Doubles | Strake Jesuit DA | Qin, Andrew, Palmer, Jacob, Krause, Lukas |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | DTHS HV | Stuckert, James |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Semis | Garland LY | Stuckert, James, Copeland, Morgan, Dua, Raunak |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Harker PG | Quisenberry, Jack |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Navarrete, Javier |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Quarters | Strake Jesuit KS | Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Quisenberry, Jack |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 2 | Apple Valley KW | Ramireddy, Anish |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 4 | Lincoln East LZ | Endsley, Eric |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 6 | Westwood PM | Czyz, Kaya |
|
|
| |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Octas | Scarsdale DH | McKyton, Jack, Kopf, Kyle, Thomas-McGinnis, Conal |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | American Heritage Broward NR | Hatfield, Wyatt |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 3 | Princeton Independent DR | Scopa, Stephen |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Mission San Jose SS | 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 | 6 | American Heritage Broward NR | Waldman, Ben |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Scripps Ranch AS | Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All Are Allowed, Simply Improve | Finals | Opponent: A Policy Debater | Judge: A Policy Judge Contact Info |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Minnetonka BD | Judge: Kirkpatrick, Braedon 1AC - SV |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Portola AS | Judge: Khattak, Muhammad 1AC - Agricultural Workers |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Broussard, Austin 1AC - The worst Pragmatism tricks aff of all time like seriously awful |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EPi | Judge: Botsch-McGuinn, Sarah, Joshi, Animesh, Nails, Jacob 1AC - US |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 3 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EP | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Datti, Abhilash 1AC - Democracy |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Georges, Joseph, Tom, Neville 1AC - Baudrillard |
| Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Semis | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Datti, Abhilash, Georges, Joseph, Datel, Amadea 1AC - China Trix AFC |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Arnold, Kristen 1AC - India |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: Orlowski, Spencer 1AC - China |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Robinson, Tajaih, Kang, Arjan, Arnold, Kristen 1AC - Courts |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Octas | Opponent: Carnegie SR | Judge: Panel 1AC - Policy Aff |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Stuckert, James 1AC - Deleuze |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Robinson, Tajaih, Taylor-Ward, Nigel 1AC - Asian Melancholy |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Qin, Andrew, Palmer, Jacob, Krause, Lukas 1AC - Courts |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Stuckert, James 1AC - Semiocap |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Semis | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Stuckert, James, Copeland, Morgan, Dua, Raunak 1AC - Venus |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack 1AC - EU |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Navarrete, Javier 1AC - Mollow |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Quisenberry, Jack 1AC - Courts |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 2 | Opponent: Apple Valley KW | Judge: Ramireddy, Anish 1AC - Rule Util |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 4 | Opponent: Lincoln East LZ | Judge: Endsley, Eric 1AC - Witchcraft Fem |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | 6 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Czyz, Kaya 1AC - Set Col |
| John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Octas | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: McKyton, Jack, Kopf, Kyle, Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 1AC - Virillio |
| 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 |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SS | 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 | 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Waldman, Ben 1AC - Virtue Ethics AMEC Theory |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Nails, Jacob, Tran, Nathaniel 1AC - Lorax |
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 | 12/19/21 |
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 oppressive 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 | 12/19/21 |
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. | 12/19/21 |
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 | 12/19/21 |
1 -- T -- Crip FrameworkTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Navarrete, Javier Our interpretation is that the disabled debaters shouldn’t have the burden of rejoinder against affirmatives that don’t defend this month’s topic.Violation:Standards:~1~ Fairness – their interp explodes limits and allows affs to monopolize the moral high ground. The lack of a stable mechanism lets them radically re-contextualize their aff and erase neg ground via perms. Disabled Fairness is good and prior – A Violating the fairness of disabled folk is worse since it uses their disabilities to your advantage B disabled folk will always be behind within systems of fluency which means our weighing claims are key to accommodation. Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small school debaters, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and disabled debaters. Anything else lets you defend ableism bad for 6 means and disabled debaters have to say ableism good or else they loose leading to self hate and ressentiment – turns under your ROTBThey don’t get to weigh the aff – it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it.~2~ Switch Side Debate – read your stuff on the neg which non-uniques your offense and is net better since a Kritik on the neg has to be tailored to the aff– otherwise your discussion starts and ends at the 1AC.~3~ Refinement – a well-defined resolution is critical to allow the neg to refute the aff in an in-depth fashion. This process of negation produces iterative testing and improvement. Only a resolution with ground on both sides allows for the most clash which controls the internal link to education. Committees outweigh because they discuss the best topic for a stasis point – even if some resolutions are bad it is net better for a group to create a topic rather than an individual. Discussion between two disabled debaters is uniquely good according to your aff since systems of fluency and the drive have excluded us so we need strategies we agree upon now which require iterative testing and clash~3~ A Autism DA – those with autism require rules and predictive topics to get a sense of routine that makes them feel safer – unpredictability leads to violence against them. B Anxiety – refusing to disclose the aff hurts those with severe anxiety who need predictable advocacies and need to know about the future to avoid triggering attacks~4~ TVA – read the aff on my wiki – the bray aff is a semiocap aff that uses disabled folk to turn capitalism against itselfFraming:Disabled Frwk before the aff – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can’t say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn’t given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn’t answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don’t know if they’re valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Paradigm Issues:Use competing interps – topicality is question of models of debate which they should have to proactively justify and we’ll win reasonability links to our offense.Drop the debater because dropping the arg is severance which moots 7 minutes of 1nc offenseNo rvis—it’s your burden to be fair and T—same reason you don’t win for answering inherency or putting defense on a disad.They can’t weigh the case—lack of preround prep means their truth claims are untested which you should presume false—they’re also only winning case because we couldn’t engage with itNo impact turns—exclusions are inevitable because we only have 45 minutes so it’s best to draw those exclusions along reciprocal lines to ensure a role for the negative | 12/1/21 |
1 -- T -- Crip Framework v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Stuckert, James Interpretation and Violation: The affirmative must defend the desirability of the hypothetical implementation of a just government recognizing an unconditional worker’s right to strike. This doesn’t entail a specific method of engaging in the topic, just that the affirmative must derive offense from a legal recognition of it. They don’t.Resolved requires policy actionLouisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong AND Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1) Violation:Standards~1~ Fairness – their interp explodes limits and allows affs to monopolize the moral high ground. The lack of a stable mechanism lets them radically re-contextualize their aff and erase neg ground via perms. Fairness is good and prior – ~A~ Violating the fairness of disabled folk is worse since it uses their disabilities to your advantage ~B~ disabled folk will always be behind within systems of fluency which means our weighing claims are key to accommodation ~C~ . Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small school debaters, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and disabled debaters. Anything else lets you defend ableism bad for 6 means and disabled debaters have to say ableism good or else they loose leading to self hate and ressentiment – turns under your ROTBThey don’t get to weigh the aff – it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it.~2~ Switch Side Debate – read your stuff on the neg which non-uniques your offense and is net better since a Kritik on the neg has to be tailored to the aff– otherwise your discussion starts and ends at the 1AC.~3~ Refinement – a well-defined resolution is critical to allow the neg to refute the aff in an in-depth fashion. This process of negation produces iterative testing and improvement. Only a resolution with ground on both sides allows for the most clash which controls the internal link to education. Committees outweigh because they discuss the best topic for a stasis point – even if some resolutions are bad it is net better for a group to create a topic rather than an individual.~3~ Ableism –~A~ Autism DA – Students with autism need rules to engage in the spaceNASDN 16 (Nebraska Autism Spectrum Disorders Network, 8-29-2016, "Rules and Routines," University Of Nebraska–Lincoln, https://www.unl.edu/asdnetwork/virtual-strategies/rules-and-routines Jwala ) AND . When students know routines, they can perform daily activities more quickly. ~B~ Anxiety – refusing to disclose the aff hurts those with severe anxiety who need predictable advocacies and need to know about the future to avoid triggering attacks~4~ TVA – read the aff on my wiki – the bray aff is a semiocap aff that uses disabled folk to turn capitalism against itselfFraming:Theory before the aff – A~ Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can’t say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B~ Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn’t given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn’t answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don’t know if they’re valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access.Paradigm Issues:Use competing interps – topicality is question of models of debate which they should have to proactively justify and we’ll win reasonability links to our offense.Drop the debater because dropping the arg is severance which moots 7 minutes of 1nc offenseNo rvis—it’s your burden to be fair and T—same reason you don’t win for answering inherency or putting defense on a disad.They can’t weigh the case—lack of preround prep means their truth claims are untested which you should presume false—they’re also only winning case because we couldn’t engage with itNo impact turns—exclusions are inevitable because we only have 45 minutes so it’s best to draw those exclusions along reciprocal lines to ensure a role for the negative | 11/22/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v7Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: Orlowski, Spencer Reject 1AR Theory arguments – a) double bind – either you can put minor ink next to answer of my responses and extend your arguments to auto-win or the judge has to intervene to see if the 2ar answers to the 2n are good enough. 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. b) they have 2 speeches on theory while I have 1 which means they can structurally preempt my answers and respond to them and I can’t do either c) 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 d) they have 1 more minute on the theory debate due to a 7-6 skew which o/w since theory is mainly about substance e) evaluate 2n paradigm issues and framing since they have 2 speeches to answer and weigh against 1 argument and I need another speech to compensate f) some judges evaluate 2ar theory arguments when a 2n kicks out of an uncondo CP which means they can generate 3 speeches of theory offense g) If they get 1ar theory, we get 2nr theory to check back against infinite 1ar abuse and k2 reciprocity both get two speeches to read theory h) 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. Also eval every layer in every speech leads to a 2-1 speech skew which is irreciprocal and leads to infinite abuse since the 2nr cant respond. | 10/30/21 |
1 -- Theory -- 1AR Theory Heg v8Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack Reject 1AR Theory arguments – a) double bind – either you can put minor ink next to answer of my responses and extend your arguments to auto-win or the judge has to intervene to see if the 2ar answers to the 2n are good enough. Intervention o/w since it takes the round out of debater’s hands b) they have 2 speeches on theory while I have 1 which means they can structurally preempt my answers and respond to them and I can’t do either c) 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. | 11/24/21 |
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 | 10/29/21 |
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 | 10/30/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Evaluate after 1ACTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Broussard, Austin Interpretation: Debaters may not read evaluate the debate after the 1ac | 11/6/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Must Read ROTBTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack A. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech.B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Strat Skew – Absent a text in the 1AC, they can read multiple pieces of offense under different ROBs and then read a new one in the 1AR so they never substantively lose debates under the ROB, it just always becomes a 2nr debate about whether the ROB is good or not comparatively to the 1n’s which moots engagement. They can warrant things like condo logic, consequentialist policy-making offense for their aff, or kritikal impacts that deviate from their plan and then read an incredibly nuanced ROB in the 1ar that makes it so only the conceded or under-covered offense matters. Stable advocacies are key to fairness since otherwise you aren’t bound by anything you say. Impact:Infinite abuse – Reading a new ROB in the 1AR makes it so all you have to do is dump on the 1N ROB and marginally extend your warrants in the 2ar and the neg can’t do anything about it since there is no 3NR to answer the 2ar weighing or extrapolations, you already have conceded offense, all you need is the ROB.2. Reciprocity – (a) restarting the ROB debate in the 1ar puts you at a 7-6 advantage on the framing debate since I have to propose one in the 1N since 2N arguments are new – putting it in the aff makes it 13-13 (b) you have one more speech to contest my ROB and weigh, I can only possibly answer your ROB in the 2n but you can do comparative weighing in the 2ar (c) I can only read a ROB in the 1N so you should read it in your first speech as well – that’s definitionally an equal burden.D~ Voter:Drop the debater – a) they have a 7-6 rebuttal advantage and the 2ar to make args I can’t respond to, b) it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm.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 | 11/24/21 |
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 -- NCM v2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Portola AS | Judge: Khattak, Muhammad 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 and reactive.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. | 11/6/21 |
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 AffsTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: Carnegie SR | Judge: Panel | 11/1/21 |
1 -- Theory -- New Affs BadTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 2 | Opponent: Apple Valley KW | Judge: Ramireddy, Anish Interpretation—the aff must disclose the plan and standard text 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki, over message or email.Violation—SS. Proves they didn’tVote neg for prep and clash—two internal links—a) neg prep—4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics—30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative b) aff quality—plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn’t inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, it should lose—this will answer the 1ar’s claim about innovation—with 30 minutes of prep, there’s still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can’t check against the broader literature.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) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory c) lets the 1ar collapse to theory for 4 mins which decks the 2nr. | 12/18/21 |
1 -- Theory -- New ROTBsTournament: 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. | 10/29/21 |
1 -- Theory -- No CIs and Eval After 1ARTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EPi | Judge: Botsch-McGuinn, Sarah, Joshi, Animesh, Nails, Jacob Interpretation: debates may not say u get 1ar theory with CI, no RVIs, DTD, read no 2nr Cis to 1ar theory and Fairness first.Violation : it was in the UVInfinite abuse – under competing interps u need to win an offense reason to not prefer the shell but we only get defensive arguments and you have said you get 1ar theory so the 1ar can just read a shell and auto win. | 11/20/21 |
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 | 10/30/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Open Source v2Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Arnold, Kristen Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don’t - 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 cheatDrop 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 | 10/30/21 |
1 -- Theory -- Trigger WarningsTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Robinson, Tajaih, Taylor-Ward, Nigel A. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads arguments related to anti-asian violence they must give a content warning before their speech.These conversations are empirically trauma inducing and warnings are a good idea.Carter 15, ~Angela Carter (Ph.D. Candidate in Feminist Studies, University of Minnesota), "Teaching with Trauma: Trigger Warnings, Feminism, and Disability Pedagogy," Disabilities Studies Quarterly, 2015~ AND intellectual work that we do" and that "the labor of healing has to be shared by all" (Smith). B. Violation: They didn’t give a content warning.C. Standard:1. Access – Content warnings for those who suffer from trauma or anxiety are excluded from the conversation without content warnings.Carter 15, ~Angela Carter (Ph.D. Candidate in Feminist Studies, University of Minnesota), "Teaching with Trauma: Trigger Warnings, Feminism, and Disability Pedagogy," Disabilities Studies Quarterly, 2015~ AND just like automatic doors allow people who use wheelchairs to more easily enter a building. Voters: Access is an independent voter – a) it’s a prior question to engaging in the space b) it’s a violation of the humanity of the opponent c) we are people before we’re debaters which makes it most intrinsic to the nature of the activity. | 11/2/21 |
2 -- FW -- Death GoodTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Portola AS | Judge: Khattak, Muhammad | 11/6/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
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 – | 10/29/21 |
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 – | 10/30/21 |
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. | 10/30/21 |
2 -- K -- JamesTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Semis | Opponent: Garland LY | Judge: Stuckert, James, Copeland, Morgan, Dua, Raunak We are at the end of art and history as the capitalist regime has been stretched to its absolute limit forcing it to comb through the waste of modernity for the newest affective fuel which the aff readily supplies. Control lives on in de-regulated semiotic economies as abjection becomes the newest surplus value to be accumulatedJames 16 (Robin James, UNC Charlotte, "Incandescence, Melancholy, and Feminist Bad Vibes: A Response to Ziarek’s Feminist Aesthetics and the Politics of Modernism", http://differences.dukejournals.org/content/25/2/116.abstract**, 2016) CJun AND censtral to the means of capital, political, and aesthetic production.17 Affirming damage is the new means of overcoming it in the pursuit of wholenessJames 15. Robin James, professor of philosophy at UNC Charlotte, Resilience and Melancholy: Pop Music, Feminism, Neoliberalism, Zero Books, 2015: 88 AND "controlling images." This looking is a type of deregulated MRWaSP visualization. Multi-Racial White Supremacist Patriarchy (MRWASP) and its cycle of resilient and precarious populations within a deregulated economy are the organizing principles of misogynistic, ableist, anti-black, and anti-queer violenceJames 15 (Robin James, UNC Charlotte, Resilience and Melancholy: Pop Music, Feminism, Neoliberalism, https://books.google.com/books/about/Resilience'Melancholy.html?id=Cf5JBgAAQBAJandprintsec=frontcoverandsource=kp'read'button~~#v=onepageandqandf=false**, 2015) AND ). MRWaSP just updates them to work in neoliberalism’s preferred mode: deregulation. The 1AC’s proliferation of meaning and information feeds into the broader system of communicative capitalism. They become information blips endlessly circulating within this academic space, failing to effectuate change.Dean 5 (Jodi Dean, professor in the Political Science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York state, "COMMUNICATIVE CAPITALISM: CIRCULATION AND THE FORECLOSURE OF POLITICS", https://commonconf.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/proofs-of-tech-fetish.pdf**, 2005) CJun AND , the penetration and duration of a contribution marks its acceptance or success. The alternative is black melancholy NOT investing in perpetuating liberalist subjectivity but an investment in death that refuses to produce affect for MRWASP to consume. The ROTB is to vote for the best methodology to resistJames 15 Robin James, UNC Charlotte ("Resilience and Melancholy: Pop Music, Feminism", Neoliberalism, https://books.google.com/books/about/Resilience'Melancholy.html?id=Cf5JBgAAQBAJandprintsec=frontcoverandsource=kp'read'button~~#v=onepageandqandf=false**, 2015)CJun AND a melancholic attachment to non-bourgeois black masculinity and to biopolitical death. Top Level1. The aff’s form of negation is only radical and noisy in relationship to resisting a liberal form of humanism. However, capitalism turns symbolic rejection into predictable noise that gets coopted. Destroying is only radical if hegemony wants you to build.James 13 AND but as disinvested, "bare" life." (505-508) 2. The information revolution under neoliberalism has left black women to die – white masculine content and control of technology has hurt black women and children for years, while framing neoliberalism and "saving" themNoble 16 (Safiya Umoja Noble, assistant professor in the Department of Information Studies in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA , appointments in the Departments of African American Studies, Gender Studies, and Education, Her research on the design and use of applications on the Internet is at the intersection of race, gender, culture, and technology, working on a monograph on racist and sexist algorithmic bias in search engines like Google , Associate Editor for the Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, "A Future for Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies", published 2016, accessed 8/30/17, http://sfonline.barnard.edu/traversing-technologies/safiya-umoja-noble-a-future-for-intersectional-black-feminist-technology-studies/) AJA AND precarity described above are tied directly to the legacy of enslavement and colonization, | 11/22/21 |
2 -- K -- Mollow vs FemTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lincoln East LZ | Judge: Endsley, Eric | 12/19/21 |
2 -- K -- Mollow vs Set ColTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 6 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Czyz, Kaya | 12/19/21 |
2 -- K -- Sensory-Motor BreakTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Stuckert, James There are two outcomes of an affective encounter between subjects ~1~ the successful sensory motor relationship – affect is internalized to produce action, or ~2~ The Sensory-Motor Break – affect is too intense for the subject to produce action, incapacitating them.Barber 16 ~Daniel Colucciello Barber "World-Making and Grammatical Impasse" from Project MUSE, JHU, 12-1-2016, https://read.dukeupress.edu/qui-parle/article-abstract/25/1-2/179/10323/World-Making-and-Grammatical-Impasse, DOA:7-25-2020 WHSRS and Lex VM~ AND of intolerability), the "non-" (of nonrelationality)—is groundless. | 11/2/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
2 -- NC -- SkepTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Stuckert, James Presumption and permissibility negates – a) statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways o/w on probability 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.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 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. | 11/22/21 |
2 -- NC -- Skep v2Tournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: Octas | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: McKyton, Jack, Kopf, Kyle, Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 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 resolvedSkep 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 AND 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 You take yourself to know that you have hands. But notice that, if you do have hands, then you are not merely a brain floating in a vat of nutrient fluid and being electrochemically stimulated to have the sensory experiences that you have now: such a brain does not have hands, but you do. So if you know that you do have hands, then you must also be in a position to know that you are not such a brain. But how could you know that you are not such a brain? If you were such a brain, everything would seem exactly as it does now; you would (by hypothesis) have all the same sensory experiences that you’re having right now. Since your empirical knowledge of the world around you must somehow be based upon your sensory experiences, how could these experiences—the very same experiences that you would have if you were a brain in a vat—furnish you with knowledge that you’re not such a brain? And if you don’t know that you’re 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.Truth properties – linguistic properties are indeterminate since every claim requires a factual definition and empirical verification, which is impossible given the arbitrariness of meaning. Kripke, Saul. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA, 1982. pg. 72 Massa The simplest, most basic idea of theAND would make the sentence true (express a truth) if it obtained. | 12/20/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
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. | 10/30/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-Testing v4Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack 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. | 11/24/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-Testing v5Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: DTHS HV | Judge: Stuckert, James The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc and exacerbates the fact that they speak first and last since I should be able to compensate by choosing – it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins.Reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional.Their framing justifies permissibility since it only tells you what to do in face of one problem which means everything outside that instance isn’t condemned. | 11/22/21 |
2 -- ROTB -- Truth-Testing v6Tournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: Octas | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: McKyton, Jack, Kopf, Kyle, Thomas-McGinnis, Conal The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc and exacerbates the fact that they speak first and last since I should be able to compensate by choosing – it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins.Reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare.The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional.Their framing justifies permissibility since it only tells you what to do in face of one problem which means everything outside that instance isn’t condemned. | 12/20/21 |
JANFEB -- DA -- DIBTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 2 | Opponent: Apple Valley KW | Judge: Ramireddy, Anish The US commercial space industry is booming – private space companies are driving innovation.Lindzon 21 ~(Jared Lindzon, A FREELANCE JOURNALIST AND PUBLIC SPEAKER BORN, RAISED AND BASED IN TORONTO, CANADA. LINDZON'S WRITING FOCUSES ON THE FUTURE OF WORK AND TALENT AS IT RELATES TO TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION) "How Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are ushering in a new era of space startups," Fast Company, 2/23/21, https://www.fastcompany.com/90606811/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-elon-musk-spaces-space~~ TDI AND curve here. Every week that goes by we’re picking up the pace." The plan creates a restriction that encourages companies to move their operations to states with lower standards.Albert 14 ~(Caley Albert, J.D. Loyola Marymount University) "Liability in International Law and the Ramifications on Commercial Space Launches and Space Tourism," Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 11/1/14, https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1708andcontext=ilr~~ TDI AND might be drawn to "launch forum shop" outside the United States. Maintaining US space dominance requires a homegrown commercial space industry – private companies offshoring gives China the advantage they need.Cahan and Sadat 21 ~(Bruce Cahan, J.D) (Dr. Mir Sadat, ) "US Space Policies for the New Space Age: Competing on the Final Economic Frontier," based on Proceedings from State of the Space Industrial Base 2020 Sponsored by United States Space Force, Defense Innovation Unit, United States Air Force Research Laboratory, 1/6/21, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-9349-d713-a777-d7cfce4b0000~~ TDI AND commercial, scientific, civil, or enhancing US competitiveness for cislunar leadership. | 12/18/21 |
JANFEB -- NC -- KantTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 2 | Opponent: Apple Valley KW | Judge: Ramireddy, Anish 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 and arbitrary.Moral law must be universal—our judgements can’t only apply to ourselves any more than 2+24 can be true only for me – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.==== Thus, the standard is consistency with liberty. Prefer:1~ The 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. 2~ Performativity—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.Contention –1~ Libertarianism mandates a market-oriented approach to space—that negatesBroker 20 ~(Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/~~ TDI AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. 2~ Property rights in space can be consistent with international lawSimberg 12 ~(Rand, MSE in technical management from West Coast University, recognized as an expert in space transportation by the Office of Technology Assessment) "Homesteading the Final Frontier A Practical Proposal for Securing Property Rights in Space," Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 2012, https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Rand-Simberg-Homesteading-the-Final-Frontier.pdf~~ TDI AND provides support for the concept of individual claims off planet under Article II. 3~ Space appropriation and exploration originates from private companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. Preventing such is a restriction on the ability of companies to set and pursue their ends and these companies gain contracts with the government for projects which turns promise breaking offense. | 12/18/21 |
JANFEB -- NC -- NIBsTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: Octas | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: McKyton, Jack, Kopf, Kyle, Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 1~ The "(with a unit of time) the present; the current." but appropriation has no specified time frame2~ appropriation is a sum of money or total of assets devoted to a special purpose." but outer space cannot own a sum of money3~ of "expressing an age" but the rez is atemporal4~ outer is "further from the center or inside.." but the resolution is aspacial and doesn’t specify distance5~ space is to "the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move" but the rez doesn’t volume6~ by is "indicating the amount or size of a margin." but the resolution and entities doesn’t specify6~ private is "(of a person) having no official or public role or position." so entities have no authority over appropriation7~ entity is "the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes" but the rez doesn’t spec8~ is describes being "Stay in the same place or condition." so action is impossible and negate on presumption | 12/20/21 |
JANFEB -- PIC -- REM MiningTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 2 | Opponent: Apple Valley KW | Judge: Ramireddy, Anish | 12/18/21 |
JANFEB -- Turns -- Space Col GoodTournament: John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School | Round: 6 | Opponent: Westwood PM | Judge: Czyz, Kaya | 12/19/21 |
NOVDEC -- K -- MollowTournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: 2 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Georges, Joseph, Tom, Neville | 10/29/21 |
NOVDEC -- K -- Mollow v2Tournament: Florida Blue Key Round Robin | Round: Semis | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Datti, Abhilash, Georges, Joseph, Datel, Amadea | 10/29/21 |
NOVDEC -- K -- Mollow v3Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Arnold, Kristen | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC -- K -- Mollow v4Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Quisenberry, Jack | 11/24/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- ConditionalityTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: Carnegie SR | Judge: Panel Presumption and permissibility negates – a) statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways o/w on probability 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.I negate: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.The resolution specifies that the right to strike must be unconditional—this means it cannot be contingent on any authority or have any exceptions.Magnell 11 ~Thomas Magnell, Quals: Philosopher, Department of Philosophy, Drew University, Madison, NJ, The Correlativity of Rights and Duties, J Value Inquiry (2011) 45:1–12~BA PB AND right conditional is a condition for acquiring the right in the first place. Unconditional right means its not dependent on anything – which means it has to be a natural right without necessitating agents meet certain qualifiations.The right to strike is a conditional right, so viewing it as unconditional is impossible. Fiat doesn’t solve because its intrinsic to the nature of the principle and the aff is a binding policy, not just view X as Y.~1~ The right to strike is conditional on the government existing and enforcing it: A~ The Sqou proves that without the state, the right doesn’t exist, which means turning the NC non-uniques the aff B~ State of nature would just mean people could take the action, not that they have a guaranteed right to do so.~2~ The right is conditional on the existence of certain social institutions: IE a workplace and employer to strike against, and a job to stop doing. This doesn’t apply to unconditional rights like freedom or life, since they are intrinsic to human nature not social constructs.~3~ Unconditional rights cannot conflict with each other, as otherwise neither would be absolute, but the right to strike conflicts with 1~ The right to life of those deprived of stuff like medicine, which is fundamental to every human action, and 2~ is intrinsically violent as when enforcing it you must know everything about a particular situation, and you must act immediately in the face of a violation, otherwise you allow injustice to occur. But these are simultaneously impossible since a) we cannot know everything about a particular situation and b) there is not infinite time to make an ethical decision. Given that there must be deliberation over any moral decision to ensure its correctness in relation to the situation, the very act of deliberation is violence, as you allow the injustice to continue, but if you were to act immediately you would act without proper knowledge to correctly address the injustice.~4~ Weighing: A~ Even if the aff proves that an unconditional right such the right to life or right to freedom entails the right to strike, this doesn’t prove that it is unconditional since it is contingent on another right, and is therefore not sufficient to affirm B~ Unconditional rights are unconditionally good and lack exceptions, so one instance where the right is wrong is sufficient to prove it is conditional too that particular circumstance. | 11/1/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- Conditionality v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack Presumption and permissibility negates – a) statements are more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways o/w on probability 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.Burden: The aff must prove a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.The resolution specifies that the right to strike must be unconditional—this means it cannot be contingent on any authority or have any exceptions.Magnell 11 ~Thomas Magnell, Quals: Philosopher, Department of Philosophy, Drew University, Madison, NJ, The Correlativity of Rights and Duties, J Value Inquiry (2011) 45:1–12~BA PB AND right conditional is a condition for acquiring the right in the first place. The right to strike is a conditional right, so viewing it as unconditional is impossible. Fiat doesn’t solve because its intrinsic to the nature of the principle and the aff is a binding policy, not just view X as Y.~1~ The right to strike is conditional on the government existing and enforcing it: A~ The Sqou proves that without the state, the right doesn’t exist, which means turning the NC non-uniques the aff B~ State of nature would just mean people could take the action, not that they have a guaranteed right to do so.~2~ The right is conditional on the existence of certain social institutions: IE a workplace and employer to strike against, and a job to stop doing. This doesn’t apply to unconditional rights like freedom or life, since they are intrinsic to human nature not social constructs.~3~ Unconditional rights cannot conflict with each other, as otherwise neither would be absolute, but the right to strike conflicts with the right to life of those deprived of stuff like medicine, which is fundamental to every human action. | 11/24/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- KantTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Aragon ZA | Judge: Orlowski, Spencer 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 resolvedThe 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 recognizing a right to strike violates liberty–The 1AC’s offense is bogus – it conflates "right to strike" with "right to quit" – striking is not a legitimate right and is fundamentally unfair.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) *brackets in original D.Ying AND a~ prime example of this reversion to the governance of status. 20 The right to strike implies a right to coercion which is a contradiction in conception.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying AND include private rights of coercion or at least troubling forms of social pressure. Strikes violate fundamental rights.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying AND Just what right do workers have to jobs that they refuse to perform? Prohibiting coercion doesn’t solve:1~ It makes the right to strike conditional.2~ Promise breaking – employees sign a contract with their employer and promise to work – striking is a unilateral violation of that. | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- Kant v2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Minnetonka BD | Judge: Kirkpatrick, Braedon 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 resolvedThe 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.2~ Negs get Contention Choice- It’s key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD. It also prevents splitting the debate allowing for in depth clash and 2ar judge psychology spins on the contention level.3~ Neg definition choice - The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.I contend that recognizing a right to strike violates liberty –1~ The 1AC’s offense is bogus – it conflates "right to strike" with "right to quit" – striking is not a legitimate right and is fundamentally unfair.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) *brackets in original D.Ying AND a~ prime example of this reversion to the governance of status. 20 2~ Strikes violate fundamental rights.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying AND Just what right do workers have to jobs that they refuse to perform? 3~ Promise breaking – employees sign a contract with their employer and promise to work – striking is a unilateral violation of that. | 11/5/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- Kant v3Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EPi | Judge: Botsch-McGuinn, Sarah, Joshi, Animesh, Nails, Jacob 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 resolvedThe 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.2~ Negs get Contention Choice- It’s key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD. It also prevents splitting the debate allowing for in depth clash and 2ar judge psychology spins on the contention level.I contend that recognizing a right to strike violates liberty –1~ Strikes violate fundamental rights.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying AND Just what right do workers have to jobs that they refuse to perform? 2~ Promise breaking – employees sign a contract with their employer and promise to work – striking is a unilateral violation of that. | 11/20/21 |
NOVDEC -- NC -- Kant v4Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Quisenberry, Jack 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.2~ Negs get Contention Choice- It’s key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD. It also prevents splitting the debate allowing for in depth clash and 2ar judge psychology spins on the contention level.I contend that recognizing a right to strike violates liberty –1~ Strikes violate fundamental rights.Gourevitch, 16 (Alex Gourevitch, associate professor of political science at Brown University, 6-13-2016, accessed on 10-12-2021, Perspectives on Politics, "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike", https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S1537592716000049) D.Ying recut Lex VM AND Just what right do workers have to jobs that they refuse to perform? 2~ Promise breaking – employees sign a contract with their employer and promise to work – striking is a unilateral violation of that. | 11/24/21 |
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. | 10/29/21 |
NOVDEC -- T -- FrameworkTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Dua, Raunak, Robinson, Tajaih, Taylor-Ward, Nigel Our Interpretation is the affirmative should instrumentally defend the resolution – hold the line, CX and the 1AC prove there’s no I-meet – anything new in the 1AR is either extra-T since it includes the non-topical parts of the Aff or effects-T since it’s a future result of the advocacy which both link to our offense."Resolved" means to enact by law.Words and Phrases ’64 AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". ~4~ Standards to Prefer:First - Fairness – radically re-contextualizing the resolution lets them defend any method tangentially related to the topic exploding Limits, which erases neg ground via perms and renders research burdens untenable by eviscerating predictable limits. Procedural questions come first – debate is a game and it makes no sense to skew a competitive activity as it requires effective negation which incentivizes argument refinement, but skewed burdens deck pedagogical engagement.Fairness turns the Aff – 1~ Solutions to status quo unfairness should not be to remove them for all but work to ensure that fairness in every instance is remedied and 2~ An unlimited topic hurts low-income and minority debaters by allowing big schools infinite capacity to break non-T Affs – for people who can’t afford to work on debate full-time due to income concerns, their interp says unless you prep out every possible Aff, you will always lose.Fairness,1~ its an independent impact and prior to the aff intrinsically true in the context of a competitive activity, before you feel comfortable voting aff, you should determine the fair basis to adjudicate substance its contradictory to vote on fairness bad you have no obligation to evaluate their arguments or conclude the aff is a good idea, which proves the lack of fairness renders the activity incoherent2~ Scope, it’s the only impact you can solve for, voting for them doesn’t resolve antiasianness in debate but voting for T remedies procedural inequalities caused by their aff3~ Only way the game works, undergirds competitive incentive to research and prep engage and clash for argumentative evaluation, OOR and prep solves their education offense, but fairness ensures that this hour is productive, this protects under resourced debaters from impossible research burdens, their version makes debate pay to play, but our model makes that better by forcing large teams to be bound to the topicSecond - Clash – picking any grounds for debate precludes the only common point of engagement, which obviates preround research and incentivizes retreat from controversy by eliminating any effective clash. Only the process of negation distinguishes debate and discussion by necessitating iterative testing and effective engagement, but an absence of constant refinement dooms revolutionary potential.Third – SSD – their model that allows them to side-step the topic on both the Aff and Neg hurts debate as a site of role experimentation – choosing to individually engage both sides solves argument refinement and self-reflexivity breeding constantly evolving methodology which is key to activist resistance BUT side-stepping it ingrains ideological dogmatism by imposing artificial lines in the sand for what not to experiment replicating imperial ideologies about exclusion.Fiat is not "coercive mimeticism" but a pragmatic engagement with the law that embraces multiple consciousness – that’s to material changes, no matter how small. Independently, affirming the "Asian American" as a static category is bad BUT deconstruction thru pragmatic struggle solves.Chang, 93 (Robert S. Chang, serves on the advisory board of Berkeley’s Asian American Law, October 1993, accessed on 2-13-2021, California Law Review, "Toward an Asian American Legal Scholarship: Critical Race Theory, Post-structuralism, and Narrative Space", https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/411/) lex dy AND through solidarity that we will one day be free to express our diversity. TVA – ~Affirm a unconditional right to strike for asian people that attempts to declare radicality with the system, solves all of your offense~TVA is terminal defense – proves our models aren’t mutually exclusive - any response to the substance of the TVA is offense for us because it proves our model allows for clear contestation. Form over Content doesn’t take it out since we don’t restrict Form, just the substantive burden of the Aff.Prefer Competing Interpretations – reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom. This means reject Aff Impact Turns predicated on their theory since we weren’t able to adequately prepare for it. | 11/2/21 |
NOVDEC -- T -- JustTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Semis | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Robinson, Tajaih, Kang, Arjan, Arnold, Kristen Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend the United States of America recognizing a right to strike.Violation: Just governments respect libertiesDorn 12 James A. Dorn, Quals: James A. Dorn is Vice President for Monetary Studies, Editor of the Cato Journal, Senior Fellow, and Director of Cato's annual monetary conference. He has written widely on Federal Reserve policy and monetary reform, and is an expert on China's economic liberalization. Cato Journal, "The Scope of Government in a Free Society", Fall 2012, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/12/v32n3-10.pdf AND people’s money, but to prevent injustice by protecting property and securing liberty. 1. The US enslaved black people in the 1800s.2. They colonized indigenous peoples and pillaged them.3. Aff is in a double bind either it is the case that denying a rts is unjust in which case the US is unjust and non topical or they do recognize a RTS which proves no inherency.4. It is impossible for a condition to be presently just because prior to the decision nothing allows us to call the decision just, and after, the decision has followed a rule that isn’t guaranteed.Derrida 16 ~Derrida, Jacques. "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority.'" Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Drucilla Cornell et al., by Derrida, Reprint ed., New York City, Routledge, 2016, pp. 3-68. Quals: Derrida was an Algerian-born French philosopher best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction, which he analyzed in numerous texts, and developed in the context of phenomenology. He is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy. During his career Derrida published more than 40 books, together with hundreds of essays and public presentations. He had a significant influence on the humanities and social sciences, including philosophy, literature, law, anthropology, historiography, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, architecture, and political theory.~ Lex VM AND fait courir) with renewed strength and speed, for example, deconstruction. Impacts –A~ accessibility – they try to justify the US as just which is exclusionary towards minorities and people of color who feel this violence everyday. This is supercharged by their reps and performance – they literally try to hide violence in spite of this systematic oppression. Hold the line – accessibility is an antecedent question to any other judge obligation because it’s a prereq to debate and a jurisdictional obligation of educators.B~ they’re not a just government in any way which side constrains any pragmatics offense and proves limits explosionPrefer –Vote neg –1~ Precision –A~ stasis point – the topic is the only reasonable focal point for debate – anything else destroys the possibility of debate because we will be two ships passingB~ internal link turn – violating semantics justifies the aff talking about whatever with zero neg prep or prediction which is the most unfair and uneducationalC~ Jurisdiction – you can’t vote for them because the ballot and the tournament invitation say to vote for the better debater in the context of the resolution2~ Limits – there are almost 200 national governments in the world which is an unmanageable burden, especially for a 3 week camp. Only imposing restrictions via the word just can ensure debates are limited and full of clashFairness 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 | 11/1/21 |
NOVDEC -- T -- Just v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit DA | Judge: Qin, Andrew, Palmer, Jacob, Krause, Lukas Interpretation: the affirmative must defend that only just governments ought to recognize the right to strikeJust governments respect libertiesDorn 12 James A. Dorn, Cato Journal, "The Scope of Government in a Free Society", Fall 2012, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/12/v32n3-10.pdf AND people’s money, but to prevent injustice by protecting property and securing liberty. Violation—the US and specifically courts are not just.Nellis, Ph.D., 18, Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System, https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/, Sentencing Project, AND former Georgetown Law Professor David Cole states in his book No Equal Justice, Prefer –1~ Precision — anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution – they try to justify the US as just which is exclusionary towards minorities and people of color who feel this violence everyday. This is supercharged by their reps and performance – they literally try to hide violence in spite of this systematic oppression. Hold the line – accessibility is an antecedent question to any other judge obligation because it’s a prereq to debate and a jurisdictional obligation of educators.2~ Limits – there are 200 governments in the world – letting them pick an unjust ones explodes limits via infinite permutations of governments3~ Phil ed – 1AR will claim no government is just but that just means that we defend ideal theory. That’s good –forces philosophical contestation which can uniquely happen in LD debate whereas you can util debate on any topic4~ TVA – read the aff as a whole res aff, same advantage areaFairness 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. | 11/22/21 |
NOVDEC -- T -- NebelTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Southlake Carroll EPi | Judge: Botsch-McGuinn, Sarah, Joshi, Animesh, Nails, Jacob Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a subset of workers’ unconditional right to strike .Violation: they doThe upward entailment test and adverb test determine the genericity of a bare plural.Leslie 16 ~Sarah-Jane Leslie, Ph.D., Princeton, 2007. Dean of the Graduate School and Class of 1943 Professor of Philosophy. Served as the vice dean for faculty development in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, director of the Program in Linguistics, and founding director of the Program in Cognitive Science at Princeton University.~ "Generic Generalizations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 24, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ TG
AND perhaps better used than "usually" to mark off the generic reading. Standards:It applies-upward entailment—‘just govts ought to recognize dunkin donuts workers right to strike’ doesn’t entiail all workers right to stirke—adverb test- just govts ought to usually regonize workers uncondiitonal right to strike doenst mean naything substanially diff from the res~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.Limits – you explode limtis since you could functionally defend any agent gets the right to strike i.e. teachers, students, government officials, athletes, celebrities, etc.Topic ed - you kill topic ed by forcing us to debate about fringe parts of the topic with minimal ground.~3~ tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res aff, solves all ur offenseFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practicest1ar theory—lexcially prior—topecality determines wehter aff is fair-self inclficted abuse | 11/20/21 |
NOVDEC -- Turns -- WipeoutTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Brown, Grant, Robinson, Tajaih, Quisenberry, Jack Extinction is good—-suffering outweighs the benefits of human existenceJoshua Rothman 17 ~{Joshua Rothman, the ideas editor of the New Yorker citing David Benatar, Associate Professor of Philosophy at University of Cape Town and author of Better To Never Have Been. 11-27-2017. "The Case for Not Being Born." https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born~~}JM AND suffering—but that’s not to defend the conditions in which he lived." "Extinction" is a decision rule — it solves future generations of nonhuman suffering.Sittler-Adamczewski 16 Thomas M. Sittler-Adamczewski (University of Oxford). "Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals." Journal of Practical Ethics. OXFORD UEHIRO PRIZE IN PRACTICAL ETHICS 2015-16. December 2016. JDN. http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/ AND touch upon the issue of how most effectively to reduce wild animal suffering. Non-human suffering is the largest impact — in quantity and severity – r-selection guarantees itMoen 16 Ole Martin Moen (University of Oslo, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature). "The ethics of wild animal suffering." Etikk i praksis. Nord J Appl Ethics (2016), 91–104. JDN. http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofWildAnimalSuffering.pdf AND suffering on Earth almost certainly takes place among animals living in wild nature. Species-neutral valuations are the most ethical — prioritizing humans is arbitrary, clearly self-interested, and the same logic as racism and sexism.Harris 99 – Dr. John Harris, Ph.D., Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics and Research Director at the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy and Director of the Institute of Medicine Law and Bioethics at the University of Manchester, "The Concept of the Person and the Value of Life", Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Volume 9, Number 4, December, Project Muse AND convince us that we had at last encountered persons elsewhere in the universe. The military is building isomer bombs that destroy the quantum vacuum- even testing destroys itBekkum 4 (Gary S., Founder – Spacetime Threat Assessment Report Research, "American Military is Pursuing New Types of Exotic Weapons", Pravda, 8-30, http://www.starstreamresearch.com/dark'matters.htm) recut Valiaveedu Recently the British science news journal "New Scientist" revealed that the American AND , Sakharov feared that an experiment might accidentally trigger a vacuum phase transition. Quantum vacuum mining destroys the universe- it’s feasible and inevitableFolger 8 – Tim Folger, Contributing Editor at Discover Magazine, Writer for National Geographic, MA in Journalism from New York University, BA in Physics from UC Santa Cruz, "Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything", Discover Magazine, 7-18, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything AND Free energy, yes, but not what the inventors had in mind. Tech advancements make future time travel certainElmi 18 – Awes Faghi Elmi, Contributing Writer at n’world Publications, BS in Forensic Science from London South Bank University, Extended Diploma in Physics with Distinction from Leyton Sixth Form College, Futurist, "Technological Progress Might Make Possible Time Travel And Teleportation", Medium, 8-13, https://medium.com/nworld-publications/technological-progress-might-make-possible-time-travel-and-teleportation-45176c3c89bc ~typo edited~ AND importantly artificial intelligence. Time will reveal what’s next on the technology roadmap. That collapses the UniverseBowers 16 – Steve Bowers, Control Officer in the United Kingdom, Executive Editor and Moderator of the Orion’s Arm Universe Project, Contributing Author for the Orion’s Arm Novella Collection, "WHY NO TIME TRAVEL IN OA", 1-1, https://orionsarm.com/page/77 AND exist . . . believe me, you don't want to go there. An avalanche of dark energy and matter research is coming quicklyBertone 18 – Dr. Gianfranco Bertone, Professor in the GRAPPA Institute and Institute of Physics at the University of Amsterdam, PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Oxford, and Dr. Tim M.P. Tait, Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, PhD in Physics from Michigan State University, BSc in Physics from UC San Diego, Former Research Associate at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory, "A New Era in the Quest for Dark Matter", Nature, 10-4, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01668.pdf AND that will become available in particle physics and astronomy in the next decade. That triggers quantum effects that violently collapse the vacuum—-destroying the UniverseArkell 14 – Esther Inglis-Arkell, Contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, Contributing Editor and Senior Reporter at io9, Freelance Writer for Ars Technica, BS in Physics from Dartmouth College, "We Might Be Destroying The Universe Just By Looking At It", io9 – Gizmodo, 2-3, https://io9.gizmodo.com/we-might-be-destroying-the-universe-just-by-looking-at-1514652112 AND we look at the universe, the more likely it is to end. | 11/24/21 |
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: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SS | 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 | 11/20/21 |
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: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SS | 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. | 11/20/21 |
SEPTOCT -- T -- PermanentTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SS | 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. | 11/20/21 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
11/5/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/29/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/29/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/29/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/1/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/1/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/2/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/2/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/22/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/22/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/22/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/24/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
12/1/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
12/1/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
12/19/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
12/19/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
9/24/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
| |
10/30/21 | vmaan03@gmailcom |
|