Lexington The Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 1 | Harvard Westlake IC | Alex Dumas |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Harker DS | Matt Moorhead |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 5 | Westwood AG | Chris Castillo |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Strake Jesuit VC | Aryan Jasani |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Loyola LR | Sam Anderson |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Princeton VC | Stephen Scopa |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 2 | Scarsdale DH | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 3 | American Heritage Broward JA | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 5 | Lake Highland Prep AB | Maggie Eby |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Doubles | Holy Cross ND | Sesh Joe, Nikhil Pisolkar, Emily Jackson |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IC | Judge: Alex Dumas AC - Covid |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead AC - EU Trade Secrets |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 5 | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo AC - Biocolonialism |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit VC | Judge: Aryan Jasani AC - Korsgaard |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Loyola LR | Judge: Sam Anderson AC - Vaccines |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Princeton VC | Judge: Stephen Scopa AC - Deleuze NCM |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis AC - Kant |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 3 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JA | Judge: Andrew Shaw AC - Semiocap |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Maggie Eby AC - Data Exclusivity |
| New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Doubles | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Sesh Joe, Nikhil Pisolkar, Emily Jackson AC - Black Fem Necropolitics Nihilism |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any You can contact me by: Feel free to message me if you have any questions, requests, or concerns | 10/25/21 |
0 - DisclosureTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Interpretation: The affirmative must disclose the advocacy/plan text and framing text if they break new when pairings are released or at coin flip. If the debate occurs during flight 2 disclosure should occur at least 30 minutes before the round. Interp: At bid distributing tournaments, debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Interpretation: At bid distributing tournaments, 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. The disclosure must occur within 30 minutes after the round. If there is something you don’t want to disclose for personal reasons there should be a note and it may be omitted. Interp: Debaters must disclose tournaments on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki under the actual name of the tournament on tabroom for every round at said tournament. To clarify- when you look up the tournament name from the wiki on tab, the entry must pop up Interpretation: debaters must disclose disclosure interps Interpretation: If a debater reads a word PIK they must disclose it on the 2021-22 NDCA LD Wiki before the round it is read in. Interpretation: Debaters must put their opponent’s name or initials and school code as displayed on tabroom when disclosing a round on the 2021-22 NDCA ld wiki. Interpretation: Debaters must put their Judge’s full name as displayed on tabroom when disclosing a round on the 2021-22 NDCA ld wiki. | 10/25/21 |
1 - K - PsychoanalysisTournament: New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Sesh Joe, Nikhil Pisolkar, Emily Jackson | 10/17/21 |
1 - ROB - Truth Testing v1Tournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo The role of the ballot and RoJ is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement– anything else moots 7 minutes of the nc – other frameworks collapse since you must say it is true.Theory is coherent and all offense links as long as it proves the resolution true or false.Prefer,1~ Constituitivism – The topic is given to us to debate by the topic comitee and five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. These are the only roles we have going into the round which means the judge only has the jurisdiction to vote on arguments that prove the truth or falsity of the resolution.2~ Inclusion – Any offense functions under truth testing but hyperspecific RoBs exclude all other discussion and hurt underpriveledged debaters that don't have the resources to engage in those arguments. | 9/19/21 |
SO - CP - CancerTournament: New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JA | Judge: Andrew Shaw | 10/16/21 |
SO - CP - EU PlanTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IC | Judge: Alex Dumas Counterplan Text: The member nations of the WTO should implement the EU's plan to:1~ Ensure COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and components can cross borders freely;2~ Encourage producers to expand their production and keep vaccines at an affordable price for countries most in need;3~ Facilitate preexisting compulsory licensing within the TRIPS Agreement.It solves the affFerrer 21 ~Miriam GARCIA FERRER, 4 June 2021, "EU proposes a strong multilateral trade response to the COVID-19 pandemic," https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2801~~ The preempt doesn't solve, it says the procedure of flexibilities and licnensing are burdensome but we fiat the CP so states do them immedietly. Opening trade laws means lincensing doenst lead to legal cases. Solves cred since the I/L is just effective policyIt's avoids the links to the DAsBacchus 2020 (James, Adjunct Fellow, Cato Institute, former U.S. Representative (D-FL), and former Chairman, World Trade Organization's Appellate Body. "An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines," Cato https://www.cato.org/free-trade-bulletin/unnecessary-proposal-wto-waiver-intellectual-property-rights-covid-19-vaccines~~#balancing-ip-rights-access-medicines-not-new-wto December 16, 2020)DR 21 | 9/18/21 |
SO - CP - EU Trade SecretsTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead CP text: The European Union ought to reduce trade secret protections for medicines by requiring that plaintiffs prove that the acquisition, use, and disclosure of the trade secret did not pertain to revealing misconduct, wrongdoing, or illegal activity, or to protecting the general public interest.The law they are criticizing is a law passed by the EU parliament. Hold them to their advocacy anything else justifies infintie shiftiness. Durable fiat is incoherent its like saying Massachusetts should repeal social security when they don't have jusrisdiction over it, EU no date~EU, xx-xx-xxxx, "The European Union and the World Trade Organization", No Publication, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/161/the-european-union-and-the-world-trade-organization, date accessed 9-18-2021~ Lex AT Two implications:1~ PLan flaw: EU members can't do the plan because the law they are repealing was passed by the EU parliament and EU law is supreme over national law generally (European court decisions) but especially on trade because the EU is a customs union.2. Plan flaw + solvency deficit. Only the EU can negotiate trade rules so even if the national govs passed the plan it wouldn't do anything. Only the EU has the power | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - BiotechTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IC | Judge: Alex Dumas US dominates biotech now but reducing IPP cedes control to China, Paulsen 7-9Erik Paulsen, 7-9-2021, "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 AT 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 American primacy solves every threat – collapse causes emboldenment and miscalcBrands 18, Hal. American grand strategy in the age of Trump. Brookings Institution Press, 2018. "Chapter 6: Does America Have Enough Hard Power?" (Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Ph.D. in history from Yale University)Elmer | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - InnovationTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IC | Judge: Alex Dumas Drug innovation is high—Prefer our study it's analyzes the past decade and is from one of the most trusted leaders in innovation information, Clarivate 9-15~Clarivate Plc, (NYSE:CLVT), a global leader in providing trusted information and insights to accelerate the pace of innovation, today announced the release of the 2021 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical RandD Factbook., 9-15-2021, "2021 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) Pharmaceutical Randamp;D Factbook from Clarivate Finds Drug Approvals at a 10-year High Despite the Challenges of COVID-19", No Publication, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2021-centre-for-medicines-research-cmr-pharmaceutical-rd-factbook-from-clarivate-finds-drug-approvals-at-a-10-year-high-despite-the-challenges-of-covid-19-301376948.html, date accessed 9-15-2021~ Lex AT IP protections encourage innovation in pandemics. McDole and Ezell 21Jaci Mcdole and Stephen Ezell; McDole is a senior policy analyst covering intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He focuses on science and technology policy, international competitiveness, trade, manufacturing, and services issues.; 4 29 2021; "Ten Ways IP Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain the World Through the Pandemic"; https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten ways ip has enabled innovations have helped sustain world through, ITIF, accessed 7 29 2021; JPark Pharma innovation solves disease – that prevents extinctionEngelhardt 8 – PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy @ Rice (Hugo, "Innovation and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Critical Reflections on the Virtues of Profit," EBrary) | 9/18/21 |
SO - DA - Innovation v2Tournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo Drug innovation is high—Prefer our study it's analyzes the past decade and is from one of the most trusted leaders in innovation information, Clarivate 9-15~Clarivate Plc, (NYSE:CLVT), a global leader in providing trusted information and insights to accelerate the pace of innovation, today announced the release of the 2021 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical RandD Factbook., 9-15-2021, "2021 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) Pharmaceutical Randamp;D Factbook from Clarivate Finds Drug Approvals at a 10-year High Despite the Challenges of COVID-19", No Publication, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2021-centre-for-medicines-research-cmr-pharmaceutical-rd-factbook-from-clarivate-finds-drug-approvals-at-a-10-year-high-despite-the-challenges-of-covid-19-301376948.html, date accessed 9-15-2021~ Lex AT The biopharmaceutical industry is uniquely reliant on IP protections – undermining them would kill innovation by making an already expensive process completely unfeasible.Kristina M. Lybecker, PhD, 17 ~PhD Economics, Associate Professor of Economics @ Colorado College~, "Intellectual Property Rights Protection and the Biopharmaceutical Industry: How Canada Measures Up," Fraser Institute, January 2017, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/intellectual-property-rights-protection-and-the20biopharmaceutical-industry.pdf C.VC 50 of medicine comes from IKEiland 08 ~Dr. Eiland received a doctorate in Oriental Archaeology from Oxford University and an LLM from the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center~, "Patenting Traditional Medicine", Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and Co. KG, pg. 7-10, 2008 SLC PK Pharma innovation solves disease – that prevents extinctionEngelhardt 8 – PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy @ Rice (Hugo, "Innovation and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Critical Reflections on the Virtues of Profit," EBrary) Extinction ow – A~ consent, B~ reversibilityTheir extinction arg isn't wrong indigenous ppl are alive in the squo which means ours ow on reversibility.Extinction isn't white paranoia and apocalyptic reps are goodThompson 18 ~Nicole Akoukou. Chicago-based creative writer. 4-6-2018. "Why I will not allow the fear of a nuclear attack to be white-washed." RaceBaitR. http://racebaitr.com/2018/04/06/2087/~~#~~ | 9/19/21 |
SO - DA - WTO ILawTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead Intellectual property rights cannot be discriminated on the basis of field, or place of inventionWTO https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm, Article 27.1, Section 5 on patents, World trade Organization, WTO, Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights The WTO's appellate body no longer exists to mediate disputes, without immediate buy in by states, and no mechanism to make disobedient states obey, the system collapsesHorton, 08/3, Lessons from Trump's assault on the World Trade Organization, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/08/lessons-trumps-assault-world-trade-organization, Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank, Communications Manager; Project Lead, Common Futures Conversations A major country operating outside WTO consensus wrecks global trade normsBacchus 20 ~James Bacchus, member of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, the Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida, 12-16-2020, "An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines," Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/free-trade-bulletin/unnecessary-proposal-wto-waiver-intellectual-property-rights-covid-19-vaccines~~/Kankee Without all states buy in, we risk WW3 but with nukesHopewell and Horton 08-03 ~Kristen Hopewell Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Policy at the University of British Columbia, and Ben Horton, Communications Manager; Project Lead, Common Futures Conversations, 08-03-2021, "Lessons from Trump's assault on the World Trade Organization," Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/08/lessons-trumps-assault-world-trade-organization~~/Kankee | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC - Actor FunctionTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC - DeterminismTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IC | Judge: Alex Dumas Permissibility/PresumptionPermissibility and presumption Negate,1~ Text – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since the aff can't prove an obligation. O/W since text is the only thing we have access to prior to the round.2~ Safety – It's ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can't know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.3~ Real world – Policymakers don't pass policies they aren't sure about, they shelve them for later.FramingThe standard is consistency with determinism.1~ Biology – Every organism has controlled responses to stimuli because of its inherited genes and environment. That applies to humans, i.e. when we cut onions we cry.2~ Nature – the universe is infinite, that justifies determinism since any individual act is too small to alter the fate of the universe, Horne 1Herman H. Horne, 1912, "The Arguments for Determinism", Excerpt from Free Will and Human Responsibility: A Philosophical Argument, https://web.csulb.edu/~~cwallis/100/articles/arguments_for_determinism.html 3~ Arbitrariness – if determinism is false then you imply that human acts are random since they aren't based on any previous cause. Ethics can't be arbitrary because otherwise it wouldn't guide action since anything is permissible.4~ The best neuroscientific, psychological, and medical evidence agrees, Lavazza 16Andrea Lavazza, Neuroethics, Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy, Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/ /recut from AHS PB 5~ Molecular Physics proves we are just constructs of molecules, Coyne 12Jerry Coyne, ~Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago~, "Why You Don't Really Have Free Will," USAToday, January 1st, 2012. Recut from SM Offense1~ Determinism states obligatory responsibility doesn't exist because everything is predetermined so the aff can't prescribe action.2~ The concept of intellectual property is incoherent, you can't reduce something that doesn't exist, Risser 10~Rita Risser, July 2010, "Creative Determinism and the Claim to Intellectual Property on JSTOR", No Publication, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27904152, date accessed 9-12-2021~ Lex AT | 9/18/21 |
SO - NC - HobbesTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loyola LR | Judge: Sam Anderson The meta-ethic is constructivism, or the idea that there is no a priori truth independent of human conceptual schemes.Prefer:~1~ Rule-following paradox—innate moral rules can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, ethics and religion proves. That means they can't guide action since A) they aren't binding B) they lead to contradictory interpertations.~2~ Epistemology—experience frames knowledge – the reason why a tree is a tree and not a rock is because we experience what a tree is and relate the word to the object.Next, every time someone acts, they have a corresponding goal—that means action necessitates imposing meaning on the world. The state of nature necessitates infinite violence between conflicting world views:~1~ Arbitrariness—under the state of nature, people will impose their own goals on each other with no restrictions which justifies infinite violations of rights and makes meaning creation impossible.~2~ Resource Wars—a finite amount of material resources creates conflict between different people who want it which means we control the root cause of the aff.There is no objective solution to this conflict because truth is relative. Instead, conflict requires the creation of the sovereign, to resolve disputes. In exchange for their safety, subjects agree to give up their claims to meaning to the sovereign.Parrish 04 ~Parrish, Rick, ~Rick Parrish teaches at Loyola University New Orleans. His current research is focused on the play of violence and respect within justice.~ "Derrida'S Economy Of Violence In Hobbes' Social Contract" Theory andamp; Event, Vol. 7 No. 4, 2005, 2005, http://muse.jhu.edu/article/244119~~#back, DOA:6-30-2018 WWBW~ Thus, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign.Now Negate —1~ Uniqueness proves the sovereign wants IP, that means the plan would be an act of coercion that goes against the soveriegns will.2~ IP rights are implicit in the creation of the sovereign in expressing creativity.Ghosh 04 ~Shubha Ghosh (B.A., Amherst College; Ph.D., University of Michigan; J.D., Stanford Law School; Professor of Law, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Law School; Visiting Professor, SMU Dedman School of Law). "PATENTS AND THE REGULATORY STATE: RETHINKING THE PATENT BARGAIN METAPHOR AFTER ELDRED". BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL. 2004. Accessed 9/3/21. https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1119327/files/fulltext.pdf Xu~ | 9/26/21 |
SO - T - FWTournament: New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Sesh Joe, Nikhil Pisolkar, Emily Jackson | 10/17/21 |
SO - T - IPTournament: New York City Invitational Debate And Speech Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Maggie Eby Interpretation – topical affirmatives must only defend reduction of intellectual property rights for medicines.Elimatne meanshttps://www.google.com/search?q=eliminate+deifnitionandoq=eliminate+deifnitionandaqs=chrome..69i57j0i13l3j0i13i30l6.1525j1j4andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8 Medicine is treatment for illness or injuryCambridge Dictionary 21 ~Cambridge Dictionary, 2021, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/medicine~~ Lex AKo Violation – Data exclusivity are not IPP for medicine.Thrasher 21 Thrasher, Rachel. "How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:" Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data-exclusivity-laws-impact-drug-prices/. Lex AKo Clinical trials are a study for medicine to then get protected, but not medicine themselvesReview ~Institutional Review, "Clinical Trials," https://www.phrma.org/policy-issues/Research-Development/Clinical-Trials~~ Lex AKo Data exclusivity is not included in TRIPS, USPTO 21~USPTO, Feb 11, 2021, "Trade related aspects of IP rights", No Publication, https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/patent-policy/trade-related-aspects-ip-rights, date accessed 9-16-2021~ Lex AT "Medicines" refers to patentsOxFam ~Oxfam, No Date, "Intellectual property and access to medicine," No Publication, https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-well-being/intellectual-property-and-access-to-medicine/ LEX JB~ The WTO has no jurisdiction over TRIPs, Francois~Andre Francois, no date, "Spotlight on: TRIPS, TRIPS Plus, and Doha", Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, https://msfaccess.org/spotlight-trips-trips-plus-and-doha, date accessed 10-16-2021~ Lex AT These cards prove theres no way for the aff to be enforced bc data exclusivity doenst exist in the WTO and they don't have jurisdiciotn over it which is an indepdnet resolvability standard since judges need to eval debates.Violation – they defend data exclusivityVote Neg –1~ Limits – their model justifies defending ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION outside of medicines from tertiary patents, provisional patents, design patents, and data exlcusitivyt which shifts an unfair prep burden to prep hundreds of affs compared to the generics that the AC has to answer2~ Ground – in the context of data exclusivity all the literature is one sided bc its sucha niche area in the topic and the ground that negates is nonspecific and generic to innovation which allows the aff to delink out of all my positions.2~ TVA – read the literature on the neg as a counterplanVoters:Fairness and education are voters – debate's a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking.Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution.Drop the debater to deter future abuse since it's the most severe form of punishmentNo RVIs1~ Skews neg strat since the 2AR can collapse for a persuasive 3min and I can never predict what they'll say to preempt it2~ Illogical – you shouldn't win just cause you're fair – it's a litmus test for engaging in substance3~ Topic ed – no RVI means we can go back to substance, but an RVI means the debate has to be resolved on the theory layer4~ Chilling effect – new debaters will be scared to read theory because they're scared of better debaters, which allows experienced debaters to get away with abuse5~ Norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong which forces me to argue for bad normsUse competing interps it creates a race to the top where we set the best norms, reaonsability is arbitrary and invites judge interventionNC theory first –a~ I was only abusive because you were first and prevented me from creating a fair stratb~ Norming – more timec~ its your burden to be topical but all other shells are bidirectional | 10/16/21 |
SO - T - MedicinesTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Westwood AG | Judge: Chris Castillo Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend WTO member nations reducing intellectual property protections for a subset of medicines.The upward entailment test and adverb test determine the genericity of a bare pluralLeslie and Lerner 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. Adam Lerner, PhD Philosophy, Postgraduate Research Associate, Princeton 2018. From 2018, Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow in the Center for Bioethics at New York University. Member of the Princeton Social Neuroscience Lab.~ "Generic Generalizations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 24, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ TG
It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn't entail reducing protections for substances, because it imply reducing IP on crops, 2~ adverb test – member nations "ought to usually reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn't substantially change resolutional meaningPrecision is an independent voter and outweighs – a) jurisdiction – the judge is contractually obligated to vote affirmative if the rez is proven true they can't vote aff if you aren't defending it, b) outweighs – 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.Vote neg:1~ Limits – you can pick anything from COVID vaccines to HIV/AIDS to random biotech to insulin treatments and there's no universal disad since each one has a different function and implication for health, tech, and relations – explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible. PICs don't solve – it's absurd to say neg potential abuse justifies the aff being flat out not T, which leads to a race towards abuse. Limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep.2~ TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it's the only intrinsic part of debate.Drop the debater – because you skewed the entire round. Deters future abuseCompeting interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm. b~ it creates a race to the top so we set the best normsNo RVIs – a) RVIs incentivize baiting T and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices and creates a chilling effect where people don't check real abuse. B) logic – you shouldn't win by proving you're topicalT before 1AR theory – A) Norms – we only have a couple months to set T norms but can set 1AR theory norms any time B) Magnitude – it impacts a larger portion of the round since the aff advocacy determines every speech after itNC theory highest layer– A~ norming – we have more speeches to develop it B~ I had to be abusive because you were first | 9/19/21 |
SO - T - OspecTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead Interpretation: The aff can specify a subset of member nations or iP protections but not both.Violation:1~ Limits – they can cherry pick any country from the China to Russia to Soko and choose any type of IP, secondary patents, orphan drugs, etc. which probably consists of hundreds of fringe affs. Limits outweighs in the context of this tournament – we've had the topic for literally 17 days, it's unreasonable to expect negatives to be prepared for obscure affs.2~ TVA – specify either a state or a subset of IP not both or the aff as an advantage under a whole res aff. Solves both of our offense.3~ Reject the 1ar's PICs argument – it leads to absurd conclusions that since the neg could potentially be abusive the aff is justified in reading an abusive aff that we cannot prepare for, which leads to infinite abuse. Also It's untrue in the context of this shell because you can still defend a plan aff and exclude most pics | 9/18/21 |
SO - T - ReduceTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead Reduce means diminish.Guy 91—(Circuit Judge). Ralph B. Guy. 1991. Tim Boettger, Becky Boettger, Individually and as Next Friend for Their Minor Daughter, Amanda Boettger v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services (89-1832) and C. Patrick Babcock, Director, Michigan Department of Social Services (89-1831), 923 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1991). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/554919/tim-boettger-becky-boettger-individually-and-as-next-friend-for-their/ Violation: they don't reduce trade secret protections they just claim whistleblowing is not a trade secret but the actual doctrine remains the same.Vote neg for predictable limits: their interp justifies borderline fringe affs of cases of IP which prevents the aff from reading core disads like innovation, biotech, etc. decks all neg prep that also means grant me leeway on cp competition since im forced into reading abusive arugments.s | 9/18/21 |
SO - T - WTOTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Matt Moorhead Interpretation: Debaters must defend all member nations pass the planTRIPS is normal means for the plan,World Trade Organization, xx-xx-xxxx, "TRIPS — Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights" No Publication, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm AT Violation:1~ TRIPS is standardized for all member nations,World Trade Organization, xx-xx-xxxx, "Frequently asked questions about TRIPS ~ trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights ~ in the WTO" No Publication, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm AT 2~ Logic - Member nations is one body, if 2 people in congress went out for lunch you wouldn't say congress went out for lunch. Means the aff has to defend all nations. Logic owStandards:A~ Limits – you explode limtis since there are thousands of permutations of countries you could defend and you arbitrarily sever from the topic which justifies reading any non-T aff.B~ Topic ed - you force debates about hypotheticals that aren't grounded in reality. Outweighs on portability since it impacts us in the real world and theres no benefit to debating an aff that can't exist.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it's the only intrinsic part of debate.Drop the debater – because you skewed the entire round.Competing interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm. b~ it creates a race to the top so we set the best normsNo RVIs – a) RVIs incentivize baiting T and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices and creates a chilling effect where people don't check real abuse. B) logic – you shouldn't win by proving you're topicalT before 1AR theory – A) Norms – we only have a couple months to set T norms but can set 1AR theory norms any time B) Magnitude – it impacts a larger portion of the round since the aff advocacy determines every speech after it | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/25/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/26/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
9/26/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/15/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
| |
10/17/21 | 22the3@lexingtonmaorg |
|