Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart BC | Judge: Scott Brown
Interpretation: If the aff defends a reduction of intellectual property rights, they must specify what an intellectual property right is in the 1AC.
Violation: they didn’t
There is not a universal definition for intellectual property rights and boundaries are subjective
Stengel ‘4
Intellectual Property in Philosophy Author(s): Daniel Stengel Source: ARSP: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Vol. 90, No. 1 (2004), pp. 20-50 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23681627 Phoenix weird formatting is due to copy and paste from source
Secondly, intellectual property
…
intellectual property law.
Standards
1 Shiftiness –
That outweighs on magnitude –
2 Real world education –
That outweighs on longevity –
Spec isn’t regressive or arbitrary
Paradigm issues
1 – Drop the debater – their abusive advocacy skewed the debate from the start and we can’t come back
2 - Comes before 1AR theory — A - If we had to be abusive it’s because it was impossible to engage their aff, B – Neg abuse outweighs aff abuse because we control the depth of the debate if we can’t engage depth is impossible
3 - Use competing interps on Spec – A – spec is a yes/no question, you can’t be half specify or mostly specify B - reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation
4 - No RVIs – A - Forcing the 1NC to go all in on the shell kills substance education and neg strat, B - discourages checking real abuse C - Encourages baiting – outweighs because if the shell is frivolous, they can beat it quick