| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - NavigationTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 8/30/21 |
SEPTOCT - NC - HobbesTournament: Loyola | Round: 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Sohum Tiwary NCFWOur value is morality as given by the word "ought" in the resolution since it implies a moral obligation.We are all restricted by our experiences; Thought/reason is finite and it is impossible to ever be truly objective.Mitchell (93'): Competition in the state of nature to create meaning causes violence (and makes it impossible to generate moral claims).Parrish, Rick. "Derrida's Economy of Violence in Hobbes' Social Contract" Theory and Event 7:4 Attempts to make intuitive claims about the kinds of impacts moral theories ought to recognize as inherently bad simply prove that we all have different instincts and intuitions when it comes to morality. If we give in to these instincts, we will never be able to generate a cohesive moral system and will inevitably create violence on those who disagree. The very fact that we are having a framework debate which has been going on for thousands of years proves that there is no one inherently correct moral theory. As such, the only way to escape moral skepticism, under which there can be no moral obligations, is to surrender the authority to make moral claims to a Sovereign.Hobbes 2 explains, Thus, the standard is Consistency with the Will of the Sovereign AND reject descriptive arguments on framing because Hobbes is normative.1Member nations of the WTO are considered individual states. Hence the following is true:1~ Moral meaning and therefore moral obligations can only exist for the people within the state, not for the state itself. The state is sovereign and is not bound by any interpretations of morality. This means that even if states wanted to reduce IPRs on medicines, they would not be able to generate a moral obligation on themselves.2~ Even if states could generate moral obligations on the sovereign, they would want to keep their options open and not limit themselves by reducing these rights. Any limit on their power would only decrease their ability to generate moral claims in the first place, creating a paradox where the original obligation ceases to exist. In other words, any acts to limit the sovereign's power weakens our ability to apply ought claims on them in the first place. The aff limits power since they link into the DA.3~ Even if states could generate moral obligations for the sovereign and the content of those obligations kept the sovereign's power, there would still be no moral obligations between different states since what binds moral claims and makes them possible is the sovereign. As such, two competing states could not generate moral claims on one another. Rather, they would need to both submit their authority to an even higher sovereign. Although the negative's advocacy is that such a higher power sovereign ought to exist, the resolution presupposes multiple states and therefore multiple sovereigns (as seen with member NATIONS). The WTO is not considered a sovereign or a higher sovereign as members aren't forced to follow guidelines and the WTO doesn't have complete control on every single action of its members.4~ Even if a single state could meet all of these conditions, the obligation would only be true of that single state, and not a general rule that all sovereigns would have to abide by. As such, it is impossible to generate a moral claim for multiple sovereigns. Again, this would all be solved if there were only one sovereign, but that is outside of the affirmative ground.No solvency: The WTO does not authorize the regulation of the IPRs rather the WIPO does (works under the UN), therefore any offense garnered off of the WTO mandating "x" is unreasonable and won't happen.https://www.hsdl.org/?viewanddid=446296 Even if they could somehow enforce this through the WTO it won't be consistent throughout the world because some countries are not a part of the organization and others don't have a specific definition of IPRs. They also have no brightline on reduce, so they will end up marginally changing the laws on IPRs and the issues intrinsic to the aff will not be solved.2Note – IP, IPR, or patents all refer to Intellectual Property RightsIPR in medicine is critical to the US and global economy, wellbeing, and the pharmaceutical industry. COVID response proves this.America's Biopharmaceutical Companies The pharmaceutical industry fuels the US and global economy.Burke 20' The aff inherently decimates the pharmaceutical industry through IPR reduction – kills economy in turn AND economic crisis leads to war and conflict. Great depression link to WWII proves.Liu 18 Global conflict goes nuclear – extinction impact.Germanos 13 | 9/6/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/6/21 | jsun587@millardpsorg |
|