AC - November 27th 1N - T-FW T-SA T-Private Actor TT case 2AR - same 2N - T-SA TT case 2AR - same
Greenhill
5
Opponent: Plano East AG | Judge: Serena Lu
AC - Evergreening NC - Espec CP-WHO CP-China CP-Secondary Patents DA-USChina Kant case 1AR - all Consult bad condo bad Kant IV 2N - CP-WHO consult bad condo bad case 2AR - kant IV case CP-WHO
Greenhill RR
3
Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Ben Cortez, Rodrigo Paramo
AC - COVID NC - Theory-Espec DA-Climate CP-Production DA-USChina Relation 1AR-same 2N - CP-Production DA-USChina relations case 2AR - same
Greenhill RR
5
Opponent: Marlborough WR | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Quentin Clark
AC - COVID NC - T-Medicines CP-China Util DA-Climate DA-USChina case 1AR - same 2N - CP=China DA-USChina case 2AR - same
Scarsdale
2
Opponent: Stuyvesant EL | Judge: Javier Hernandez
AC - whole res NC - PIC-Military DA-Econ NC-Hobbes DA-Tech 1AR - must spec status 2N - same PIC 2AR - spec status
St Marks
1
Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Gordan Krauss
AC - stock NC - Theory-Disclose RR CP-China DA-USChina Relations CP-US Production DA-Innovation case (WTO bad) 1AR - same 2N - CP-China DA-USChina Relations WTO Bad 2AR - same
AC - Kant NC - CP-Consult WHO Th-ESPEC Th-solvency adv util DA-USChina case 1AR - all consult bad rvis 2N - CP-WHO consult bad rvis 2AR - consult bad
St Marks
6
Opponent: Harker AA | Judge: Danielle Dosch
AC - Pandemics NC - T-Reduce DA-Climate CP-USCHINA DA-CHINA CP-US Production Kant case 1AR - same pics bad condo bad 2N - Kant case shells 2AR - condo bad
Valley
1
Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Maya Xia
AC - Women's Medicines NC - T-Reduce CP-WHO CP-Women's Meds DA-USCHINA Util case 1AR - same 2N - same
Valley
3
Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Victor Chen
AC - EU Trade secrets NC - T-WTO DA-WTO CP-Prizes CP-WHO case 1AR - All 2N - CP-WHO case 2AR - Same
Valley
6
Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Aryan Jasani
AC - Virtue Ethics 1N - Theory-SA ESPEC Theory-Disclose meta ethic util CP-WHO case 1AR - all AFC 2N - CP-WHO case 2AR - AFC
Valley
Doubles
Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: panel
AC - Kant NC - Theory-RR Disclosure Theory-SA Theory-ESPEC Theory-Disclose Framing Theory-Disclose Adv Areas CP-WHO V3 tt Theory-Combo V2 case 1AR - all RVIs IV-Check spec shells in cross IV-Disclosure theory bad 2N - Theory-Combo CP-WHO case 2AR - RVIs CP-WHO
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
1 - NC - TT
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Allison Aldridge The ROB is to determine the truth of falsity of the resolution – 1 Textuality – five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true. That OW – a Jurisdiction – judges are constrained through their constitutive purpose and proves it’s a side constraint on what arguments they can vote on. b Predictability – people base prep off the pregiven terms in the resolution. 2 Isomorphism – alternative ROBs aren’t binary truth/false because of topic lit biases which increases intervention and takes the debate out of the hands of debaters. 3 Inclusion – any offense functions under it as long as debaters implicate their positions to prove the truth or falsity of the resolution which maximizes substantive clash through ground and is a sequencing question for engaging in debate. 4 Logic – any statement relies on a conception of truth to function – for example, I’m hungry is the same as its true that I’m hungry – logic is a litmus test for any argument and proves your ROB collapse since it relies on truth. Presumption and permissibility negates – a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted – there’s alwahys an institutional DA to going through Congress c) ought means “moral obligation” so the lack of that obligation means the aff hasn’t fulfilled their burden Negate – 1 member is “a part or organ of the body, especially a limb” but an organ can’t have obligations 2 of is to “expressing an age” but the rez doesn’t delineate a length of time 3 the is “denoting a disease or affliction” but the WTO isn’t a disease 4 to is to “expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)” but the rez doesn’t have a location 5 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.
9/11/21
1 - NC - TT V2
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Cardinal Gibbons RS | Judge: Stuckert, Castillo, Kotamraju The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – A - anything else moots 7 minutes of the NC – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that their theory of power is better than another before you adopt it.
B - 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 so it's constitutive and jurisdictional. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I've met my burden.
C - it’s the most logical since you don’t say vote for the player who shoots the most 3 points, the better player wins since debate is a game with rules given by how there’s a winner and loser. Answers collapse to truth testing since they require truth value i.e. truth testing is false requires proving that it is true that truth testing is false.
D - Nothing leaves this round other than the result on the ballot which means even if there is a higher purpose, it doesn’t change anything, and you should just write whatever is important on the ballot and vote for me.
E - ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem.
F - Other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape
G - They don’t prove the rez true so you should negate on face.
Negate - 1 - Darwinian dilemma—if moral facts were objective realities, species who believed them would’ve died out since they’re dominated by beliefs that are more evolutionarily advantageous. Since we believe there are moral facts, they’re merely beliefs that help us reproduce with no independent normative force
2 - Bonini’s Paradox- As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable; for it to be more understandable it must be less complete and therefore less accurate. Therefore no philosophical or political model can be useful.
3 - Linguistics – words are indeterminate since every claim requires a empirical verification, which is impossible given the arbitrariness of meaning. If I say, “The man is on the table”, that statement is true if and only if a certain man is on a certain table. This takes out any definition based a prioris because they can’t be based on a definition.
4 - Good Samaritan Paradox -- affirming negates because in order to say you want to fix x problem, that assumes x problem exists in the first place, thus having a jobs guarantee presupposes ungrievable lives exist which means negation is a prior question
5 - Grain Paradox- A single grain of millet makes no sound upon falling, but a thousand grains make a sound. But a thousand nothings cannot make something which means the physical world is paradoxical.
9/19/21
1 - NC - Util
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Allison Aldridge Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they’re our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actions. Moen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. SM Let us start
AND
ground Pettit’s theory.
The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Consequentialism SPEC: NEC (necessary enabler consequentialism) – all moral reasons for acts are provided by facts that the acts are necessary enablers for preventing death.
Actor specificity: a. No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation. b. No intent-foresight distinction – the actions we take are inevitably informed by predictions from certain mental states, meaning consequences are a collective part of the will. c. Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action. 2. Extinction comes first under any framework. Pummer 15 Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. “Moral Agreement on Saving the World” Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015 AT There appears to
AND
acting very wrongly.”
a. Gateway issue - we need to be alive to assign value and debate competing moral theories- extinction literally ends the debate on “ought”. b. moral theories were formulated prior to the Anthropocene and human capacity for collective death so they cannot be relied on in situations of existential risk. c. no coherent moral theory can allow for extinction because it means the end of value. 3. Intuitions ow – if a very well justified, logical theory concluded "genocide” you wouldn’t say “huh I guess genocide is good” you would abandon it – also proves death outweighs because it’s counterintuitive to say extinction of the whole world doesn’t matter. 4. Theoretically prefer util – its DTA. a. Ground – every impact functions under util whereas other ethics flow to one side exclusively. b. Topic lit – most articles are written through the lens of util because they’re crafted for policymakers and the general public who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Key to fairness and education.
9/11/21
1 - T - Disclose Meta-Ethic
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Aryan Jasani Interpretation: the aff must disclose the meta ethic of the 1ac at least 15 before the round Violation: It’s a voter for strat skew. My pre-round prep is eviscerated by not knowing what impacts matter under their fwk. This forces us to start preparing for the aff right when we get the aff which destroys clash because we cant form good 1nc strategy without knowing what matters. For example their model allows us to spend pre round prepping the rawls aff but then it is a util aff. This exacerbates the advantages of being aff because they already get infinite prep time and destroys neg flex.
9/27/21
1 - T - FW
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Cardinal Gibbons RS | Judge: Stuckert, Castillo, Kotamraju Interpretation debaters must defend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. “Resolved” means to enact by law. Words and Phrases ’64 (Words and Phrases; 1964; Permanent Edition) Definition of the
AND
establish by law”.
Nations are defined territories with governments Merriam Webster Merriam Webster, 8-22-2021, accessed on 9-6-2021, Merriam-webster, "Definition of NATION", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation Adam Definition of nation
AND
Nation in Oklahoma
Medicines refer to physical substances. American Heritage Dictionary of Medicine 18 The American Heritage Dictionary of Medicine 2018 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company https://www.yourdictionary.com/medicineElmer "A substance, especially
Limits- there are a finite amount of topical restrictions, but an infinite number of non topical affirmatives. Not debating the topic allows someone to specialize in one area of the library for 4 years giving them a huge edge over people who switch research focus ever 2 months.
3 impacts: First is fairness—debate is fundamentally a game which requires both sides to have a relatively equal shot at winning and is necessary for any benefit to the activity. That outweighs:
a. decision-making: every argument concedes to the validity of fairness i.e. that the judge will make a fair decision based on the arguments presented. This means if they win fairness bad vote neg on presumption because you have no obligation to fairly evaluate their arguments.
b. probability: voting aff can’t solve any of their impacts but it can solve ours. All the ballot does is tell tab who won which can’t stop any violence but can resolve the fairness imbalance in this particular debate.
Second - Testing – topical debate allows in depth analysis of tangible solutions for real world problems. Abstracting to arbitrary advocacies deteriorates from those skills, making debate meaningless. They turn the debate into a monologue where the negative debater is robbed of opportunities to learn which turns aff solvency to their method since I can’t engage. Advocacy skills controls the internal link to education and outweighs on portability since it is applicable to the real world. Private Actor Fiat –its unpredictable – u can choose a billion actors, organizations, and creates cruel optimism because it’s literally impossible for that kind of action to happen because they don’t have the infrastructure to succeed
Third is the small schools disad - under-resourced are most adversely effected by a massive, unpredictable caselist which worsens structural disparities
Ballot paradox - either they want the ballot and prove the competition arguments, or they’re only here for the discussion in which case vote neg but recognize the aff’s education is valuable – proves T comes first.
TVA – whole rez with ur framing and cybernetics adv Disads to the TVA prove there’s negative ground and that it’s a contestable stasis point, and if their critique is incompatible with the topic reading it on the neg solves and is better because it promotes switch-side debate. Paradigm –
TFW is drop the debater – it indicts their method of engagement and proves we couldn’t engage fairly with their aff. 2. Competing interps – reasonability is arbitrary, you can’t be reasonably topical, and causes a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. 3. RVIs and impact turns encourage all in on theory which decks substance and incentivize baiting theory with abusive practices. 4. No impact turns— exclusions are inevitable—there are infinite topics that are important discussions but not all of them are debatable. Even if our vision of the topic can’t fully include their scholarship they have to weigh the marginal benefit of allowing their scholarship against having literally no limit on what the affirmative can talk about which proves maintaining the topic as a stasis point outweighs.
9/19/21
1 - Theory - CSPEC
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Megan Wu Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1ac. Each nuance of the ethic entails different obligations and would exclude different offense – there are 7 different versions. Mastin, Luke Mastin, Consequentialism, The basics of philosophy http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html Some consequentialist theories
AND
to their well-being. Standards:
Shiftiness – They can shift out of my turns based on whatever theory of the good they operate under due to the nature of a vague standard. Especially true because the warrants for their standard could justify different versions of consequentialism as coming first and I wouldn’t know until the 1ar which gives them access to multiple contingent standards. 2. Strat – I lose 6 minutes of time during the AC to generate a strategy because I don't know what turns or strategy, I can go for during the 1N absent which proves CX doesn’t check since it would occur after the skew. 3. Resolvability – Makes the round irresolvable since we can’t weigh different mechanisms for the good – Benatar would probably link harder under a hedonistic conception of util – weighing ground is key since it ensures we can compare arguments that clash to access the ballot.
9/19/21
1 - Theory - Combo
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Megan Wu Interpretation: Debaters may not justify 1ar theory is dtd, no rvi, competing interps, no 2n theory paradigm issues , and it’s the highest layer Violation: its all in the underview Standard:
Infinite Abuse - their norm justifies the affirmative auto winning every round since they can read infinite risk free 1AR shells with DTD and Competing interp. And since I don’t have 2n paradigm issues I can’t contest it. Even if I uplayer I can’t win since your shell is the highest layer. Answering the argument doesn’t solve because you can read infinite of these paradigm issues in the 1ac making it impossible. Norming is an independent voter since justifying the value of debate necessarily justifies the norms of the activity being good in order for debate to be valuable.
9/19/21
1 - Theory - Combo V2
Tournament: Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: panel Interpretation: Debaters may not justify 1ar theory is dtd, no rvi, competing interps, Violation: its all in the underview Standard:
Infinite Abuse - their norm justifies the affirmative auto winning every round since they can read infinite risk free 1AR shells with DTD and Competing interp. And since I don’t have 2n paradigm issues I can’t contest it. Even if I uplayer I can’t win since your shell is the highest layer. Answering the argument doesn’t solve because you can read infinite of these paradigm issues in the 1ac making it impossible. Norming is an independent voter since justifying the value of debate necessarily justifies the norms of the activity
9/27/21
1 - Theory - Disclose Adv Areas
Tournament: Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: panel Interpretation: Debaters must disclose the advantage area before round within 15 minutes of when pairings were released Violation: Standards:
Limits- plan affs means that their advantage could functionally be anything from the world which means we don't get a quality push versus the crux of their advantage. That forces the negative into reading either A Advocacies that have nothing to with their advantage area or B Really bad generics that the aff will always be ahead on. It makes clash non-specific and arbritary at best 2. Clash- disclosing 15 mintues instead of when the pairings come out means that they can arbritarlly stall us out and makes it impossible for us to have any genuine chance at prepping their strategy. Paradigm: Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. DTD – Time spent on theory cant be compensated for, the 1nc was already skewed, and its key to deterring abuse. Prefer Competing interps -
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. 2. it Causes a race to the bottom where debaters push the limit as to how reasonably abusive, they can be. No RVI’s -
Chills some debaters from reading theory against abusive postions. 2. incentivizes theory baiting where you can just bait theory to win.
9/27/21
1 - Theory - Disclose Framing
Tournament: Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: panel Interpretation: the aff must disclose the framework of the 1ac _ before the round Violation: It’s a voter for strat skew. My pre-round prep is eviscerated by not knowing what impacts matter under their fwk. This forces us to start preparing for the aff right when we get the aff which destroys clash because we cant form good 1nc strategy without knowing what matters. For example their model allows us to spend pre round prepping the rawls aff but then it is a util aff. This exacerbates the advantages of being aff because they already get infinite prep time and destroys neg flex.
9/27/21
1 - Theory - Disclose RR
Tournament: Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: American Heritage Broward EM | Judge: panel Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-2022 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. Violation: Standards: 1 - Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but independents are left in the dark so round reports are key for them to prep- they give you an idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it's an impact multiplier. 2 - Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1ARs vs NCs – helps compensate for kids who can't afford coaches to prep out NCs. Also eval debate after 1nc and b4 1ar – k2 reciprocity bc both sides get 1 speech – flips speech time skew to account for aff inf prep 3 - Pre-round prep –1AR’s and 2AR’s gives especially give an idea of what type of debater someone is – they could lose on 1AR theory every round, or go for a RVI– otherwise I enter every round unknowing whereas you have an idea of what you want to go for, and what you can answer well from the start. Disclosure outweighs – it’s key to assessing the honesty of the form of your argumentation and how you presented arguments which means it precludes 1nc claims. Paradigm: Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. DTD – Time spent on theory cant be compensated for, the 1nc was already skewed, and its key to deterring abuse. Prefer Competing interps -
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. 2. it Causes a race to the bottom where debaters push the limit as to how reasonably abusive, they can be. Reject all responses to disclosure – they selectively comply with our norm because they disclose some docs that meet our criteria which proves we can’t verify what norms they actually agree with. No RVI’s -
Chills some debaters from reading theory against abusive postions. 2. incentivizes theory baiting where you can just bait theory to win.
9/27/21
1 - Theory - Must Have SA
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Cardinal Gibbons RS | Judge: Stuckert, Castillo, Kotamraju Interpretation: The affirmative must have a carded solvency advocate in the 1AC. Violation – There is no card that talks about the inhuman eliminating IPP for medicine Standards:
predictability - no way for the neg to predict the advocacy because it’s not in the lit – this decks DA and CP ground - outweighs because ground is the key determinant of engagement.
2. limits – no solvency advocate allows infinite possible affs – also justifies breaking affs that are at the edges of the topic with no advocate.
3. shiftiness - no way to guarantee the DAs and CPs we read link or solve because they can re-interpret the plan in the 1ar – creates a 7-6 skew that prevents new 2nr ev to prove normal means from checking.
9/19/21
1 - Theory - SA
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Aryan Jasani Interpretation: The affirmative must have a carded solvency advocate in the 1AC. Violation - Standards:
predictability - no way for the neg to predict the advocacy because it’s not in the lit – this decks DA and CP ground - outweighs because ground is the key determinant of engagement. 2. limits – no solvency advocate allows infinite possible affs – also justifies breaking affs that are at the edges of the topic with no advocate. 3. shiftiness - no way to guarantee the DAs and CPs we read link or solve because they can re-interpret the plan in the 1ar – creates a 7-6 skew that prevents new 2nr ev to prove normal means from checking.
9/27/21
ND - CP - Military
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Stuyvesant EL | Judge: Javier Hernandez CP Text: A just government should recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike, except workers in the armed forces.
Military unions wrecks US readiness. Caforio 18, Giuseppe. "Unionisation of the Military: Representation of the Interests of Military Personnel." Springer, 20 May 2018, link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_19#citeas. THE OPPOSITION TO
AND
Austria and Sweden.
Readiness solves nuclear war, terror, and WMD prolif but ground forces are key. Bonds 17 Timothy M. Bonds is vice president, Army Research Division, and director, RAND Arroyo Center. Bonds has served as a RAND vice president since 2011. Previously, he was deputy director of the Arroyo Center from 2003 to 2011, acting director from March 2009 to May 2010, and, from 1999 to 2003, director of the Aerospace Force Development Program within RAND Project AIR FORCE. Prior to joining RAND, Bonds spent nine years in the aerospace industry, where he led projects to develop high-speed vehicle and weapons concepts. He holds an M.S. in aero/astro engineering from the University of Illinois and an M.B.A. from Washington University, St. Louis. Limiting Regret: Building the Army We Will Need--An Update. Testimony presented before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 1, 2017. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT466/RAND_CT466.pdf For our first
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Stuyvesant EL | Judge: Javier Hernandez The global economy is stabilizing and set for increases in 2021 but is still vulnerable to shocks. WB 21. (The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of funding and knowledge for developing countries. Its five institutions share a commitment to reducing poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development.) "The Global Economy: on Track for Strong but Uneven Growth As COVID-19 Still Weighs." World Bank, 8 June 2021, www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/06/08/the-global-economy-on-track-for-strong-but-uneven-growth-as-covid-19-still-weighs. A year and
AND
global economic activity.
Strikes dismantle critical core industries that is necessary to avoid recession. McElroy 19, John. (John is editorial director of Blue Sky Productions and producer of "Autoline" for WTVS-Channel 56 Detroit and "Autoline Daily" the online video newscasts.) "Strikes Hurt Everybody." WardsAuto, 25 Oct. 2019, www.wardsauto.com/ideaxchange/strikes-hurt-everybody. This creates a
AND
torching the countryside.
Strikes create a stigmatization effect over labor and investment - devastates growth. Tenza 20, Mlungisi. (Mr Mlungisi Tenza is a lecturer in the field of Labour Law at the School of Law. He holds a LLM Degree. His research interests are in Constitutional Law, Law of Trade Marks and Competition Law.. Academic Qualifications: LLB LLM Professional Qualifications: Admitted Attorney of the High Court of South Africa Commissioner of the CCMA) "THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENT STRIKES ON THE ECONOMY OF A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: A CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA." SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online, 2020, www.scielo.org.za/pdf/obiter/v41n3/04.pdf. When South Africa
AND
by 0.72 and 0.78.32
Err neg – data is misleading and underestimates economic damage. Babb ND, Katrina. (Economics Instructor at Indiana State University) "Chapter 11: The Economic Impact of Unions." ISU, isu.indstate.edu/conant/ecn351/ch11/chapter11.htm. Strikes - Simple statistics
AND
to labor alone.
Decline goes nuclear. Tønnesson 15, Stein. "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace." International Area Studies Review 18.3 (2015): 297-311. (the Department of Peace and Conflict, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Peace research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Norway) Several recent works
Unionization wrecks innovation. Frick 15, Walter. (Walter Frick is executive editor, membership at Quartz. Before that he was an editor at Harvard Business Review for six years, most recently as Deputy Editor of HBR.org. He's based in Boston and is interested in economics, technology, and the future of media.) "When Treating Workers Well Leads to More Innovation." Harvard Business Review, 3 Nov. 2015, hbr.org/2015/11/when-treating-workers-well-leads-to-more-innovation. But not everything
AND
the company’s success.
Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector. Vynck et al 21 Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; “Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech,” The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer///SJWen In response to
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Allison Aldridge CP Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization except the People’s Republic of China will reduce intellectual property protections on medicines to the point that discoverable biological elements are not patentable outside of their country of origin as described by 1AC Khor
Despite growing rivalry, US-China economic interdependence strong now. Exchange of tech know-how, collaboration science research, and massive US-China STEM pipeline improving relations – but it can easily collapse. Hass 21Ryan Hass (Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center The Michael H. Armacost Chair Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies Nonresident Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School), 8-12-2021, "The “new normal” in US-China relations: Hardening competition and deep interdependence," Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/08/12/the-new-normal-in-us-china-relations-hardening-competition-and-deep-interdependence/ belle The intensification of
AND
trend will continue.
Plan hurts US-China relations – means China goes back on it’s promise to regulate IP violations and draws in U.S. crackdown. Shape 21 Steven M. Shape; registered patent attorney and electrical engineer who has represented preeminent technology companies in complex, high-stakes Intellectual Property litigation; 2-19-2021, "IP Law Looms Large Over U.S.-China Relations," No Publication, https://www.mondaq.com/trademark/1038030/ip-law-looms-large-over-us-china-relations belle The U.S. and
AND
their intangible assets.
AI destabilizing but dialogues key to peaceful AI – anything else risks escalation to nuclear war. Haotian 21 Qi Haotian (assistant professor in the School of International Studies at Peking University, where he teaches courses on international security, military science, international public policy, and game theory. He is also secretary general of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding at Peking University. His research interests include technological transitions and world politics, international security and conflict management, and methodology and philosophy of social science) April 2021, " US AND CHINESE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES," United States Institute of Peace, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/pw_172-enhancing_us-china_strategic_stability_in_an_era_of_strategic_competition_us_and_chinese_perspectives.pdf belle The rapid decision-making
AND
strike countermeasure systems.
9/11/21
SO - CP - China V2
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AL | Judge: Tej Gedela CP Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization except for the People’s Republic of China ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. Despite growing rivalry, US-China economic interdependence strong now. Exchange of tech know-how, collaboration science research, and massive US-China STEM pipeline improving relations – but it can easily collapse. Hass 21Ryan Hass (Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center The Michael H. Armacost Chair Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies Nonresident Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School), 8-12-2021, "The “new normal” in US-China relations: Hardening competition and deep interdependence," Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/08/12/the-new-normal-in-us-china-relations-hardening-competition-and-deep-interdependence/ belle The intensification of
AND
trend will continue.
Plan hurts US-China relations – means China goes back on it’s promise to regulate IP violations and draws in U.S. crackdown. Shape 21 Steven M. Shape; registered patent attorney and electrical engineer who has represented preeminent technology companies in complex, high-stakes Intellectual Property litigation; 2-19-2021, "IP Law Looms Large Over U.S.-China Relations," No Publication, https://www.mondaq.com/trademark/1038030/ip-law-looms-large-over-us-china-relations belle The U.S. and
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Megan Wu CP Text: States should individually domestically establish single-payer national health insurance. Solves evergreening and drug prices while avoiding our innovation turns. Narayanan 19 Srivats Narayanan 8-15-2019 "Medicare for All and Evergreening" https://medium.com/@srivats.narayanan/medicare-for-all-and-evergreening-cb84c930e0ea (UMKC School of Medicine)Elmer Drug companies rake
AND
of medical innovation.
9/19/21
SO - CP - Orphan Drugs
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Peninsula BD | Judge: James Stuckert CP Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should -eliminate intellectual property protections for medicines except for orphan drugs. -prioritize distribution of orphan drugs to the Global South. Orphan drug legislation is specifically key to stimulate research into rare diseases. Horgan et. al 20 D, Moss B, Boccia S, Genuardi M, Gajewski M, Capurso G, Fenaux P, Gulbis B, Pellegrini M, Mañú Pereira M, M, Gutiérrez Valle V, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, Kent A, Cattaneo I, Jagielska B, Belina I, Tumiene B, Ward A, Papaluca M: Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU’s Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed? Biomed Hub 2020;5:1-11. doi: 10.1159/000509272 https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/509272#sid The European Union’s
Tournament: Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Victor Chen CP Text: The member states of the European Union ought to provide financial rewards for whistleblowers related to medicines, modelled after the US bounty system established by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.
Solves better than the aff—empirics – the problem isn’t the problem that whistleblowers don’t win disputes, its that they don’t come forward Maslen 2018 (Caitlin, Research Associate at Transparency International. MA in Corruption and Governance from the University of Sussex. “Whistleblower Reward Programs” (Anti-Corruption Helpdesk, Transparency International, https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/Whistleblower-Reward-Programmes-2018.pdf 27 September 2018)DR 21 Increasing the quantity
AND
caused by reward programmes.
9/26/21
SO - CP - Production
Tournament: Greenhill RR | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake CC | Judge: Ben Cortez, Rodrigo Paramo CP Text: the United States should - anonymously invest $25 billion into 25 production lines dedicated solely to COVID-19 vaccines to boost global vaccine production managed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. - distribute 8 billion doses of COVID vaccines using an equitable distribution framework prioritizing developing countries in the Global South. The CP solves the entirety of the case and does it faster. Stankiewicz 21 Mike Stankiewicz 5-6-2021"Opinion: For just $25 billion, the U.S. could jump-start a project to quickly vaccinate the entire world against COVID" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-just-25-billion-the-u-s-could-jump-start-a-project-to-quickly-vaccinate-the-entire-world-against-covid-11614898552 (a press officer in Public Citizen's communication's department, where he focuses on legislative policy and health-orientated advocacy)Elmer Despite wealthy countries
AND
to do so.
9/18/21
SO - CP - Secondary Patents
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Plano East AG | Judge: Serena Lu Solves all your offense by reducing purely strategic patents while permitting RandD for genuine improvements. Newsome 17, A (JD candidate George Washington School of Law). (2017). Side effects of evergreening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 45(4), 791-822 Justin The current framework
AND
cancer - remains unaffected.
Solves best. Newsome 17, A (JD candidate George Washington School of Law). (2017). Side effects of evergreening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 45(4), 791-822 Justin Pharmaceutical patents are
AND
down through competition
9/19/21
SO - CP - US Production
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Gordan Krauss CP Text: the United States should -invest $25 billion into 25 production lines dedicated solely to COVID-19 vaccines to boost global vaccine production managed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. -distribute 8 billion doses of COVID vaccines using an equitable distribution framework prioritizing developing countries in the Global South. The CP solves the entirety of the case and does it faster. Stankiewicz 21 Mike Stankiewicz 5-6-2021"Opinion: For just $25 billion, the U.S. could jump-start a project to quickly vaccinate the entire world against COVID" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-just-25-billion-the-u-s-could-jump-start-a-project-to-quickly-vaccinate-the-entire-world-against-covid-11614898552 (a press officer in Public Citizen's communication's department, where he focuses on legislative policy and health-orientated advocacy)Elmer Despite wealthy countries
AND
interest to do so.
Unilateral US action is necessary to combat Chinese and Russian vaccine diplomacy – they’re establishing spheres of influence because of few vaccines in developing countries – collapses the LIO. Carman and Carl 21. (Ezequiel Carman is an Argentine lawyer and global health and trade policy consultant. Previously, he served as a legal advisor to the Ministry of Justice of Buenos Aires, an assistant professor of international public law at the Universidad Católica Argentina, and a research assistant at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Joseph Carl is a graduate of Liberty University, where he studied international relations and strategic international studies. He has worked for the U.S. Department of State and the Heritage Foundation) “A U.S. vaccine diplomacy strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean,” The Global Americans, June 15, 2021. https://theglobalamericans.org/2021/06/a-u-s-vaccine-diplomacy-strategy-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/ TDI Once again, history
AND
the United States.
10/16/21
SO - CP - WHO
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: Aff Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Chris Castillo CP Text: Member states of the World Trade Organization should enter into a prior and binding consultation with the World Health Organization on whether or not to do the Plan. The World Health Organization ought to publicly declare that their decision on the Plan will represent their future decisions on all intellectual property protections on medicines. The plan’s unilateral action by the WTO on medical IP undermines WHO legitimacy – forcing a perception of WHO action against patents is key to re-assert it – they say yes. Rimmer 04, Matthew. "The race to patent the SARS virus: the TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines." Melbourne Journal of International Law 5.2 (2004): 335-374. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1681117/Rimmer.pdf (BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Australian National University), PhD (New South Wales); Lecturer at ACIPA, the Faculty of Law, The Australian National University)SidK + Elmer The WHO has
AND
new infectious diseases
Consultation displays strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states which are key to WHO legitimacy Gostin et al 15 (Lawrence O., Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights, JD from Duke University) “The Normative Authority of the World Health Organization,” Georgetown University Law Center, 5/2/2015 JL Members want the
AND
hold it accountable.
WHO is critical to disease prevention – it is the only international institution that can disperse information, standardize global public health, and facilitate public-private cooperation. Murtugudde 20 (Raghu, professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of Maryland, PhD in mechanical engineering from Columbia University) “Why We Need the World Health Organization Now More Than Ever,” Science, 4/19/2020 JL WHO continues to
AND
to implement IHR.
Extinction – defense is wrong. Piers Millett 17, Consultant for the World Health Organization, PhD in International Relations and Affairs, University of Bradford, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, “Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity”, Health Security, Vol 15(4), http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/hs.2017.0028 Historically, disease events
AND
modified as well.
9/16/21
SO - CP - WHO V2
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AL | Judge: Tej Gedela CP Text: Member states of the World Trade Organization should enter into a prior and binding consultation with the World Health Organization on whether or not to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. The World Health Organization ought to publicly declare that their decision on the plan will represent their future decisions on all intellectual property protections on medicines. WHO says yes. Kimball 21 (Spencer, news editor with CNBC.com) “WHO chief urges world to follow U.S. lead and support waiving Covid vaccine patent protections,” CNBC, 5/7/2021 JL World Health Organization
AND
follow their example.”
The plan’s unilateral action by the WTO on medical IP undermines WHO legitimacy – forcing a perception of WHO action against patents is key to re-assert it – they say yes. Rimmer 04, Matthew. "The race to patent the SARS virus: the TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines." Melbourne Journal of International Law 5.2 (2004): 335-374. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1681117/Rimmer.pdf (BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Australian National University), PhD (New South Wales); Lecturer at ACIPA, the Faculty of Law, The Australian National University)SidK + Elmer The WHO has
AND
new infectious diseases.
Consultation displays strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states which are key to WHO legitimacy Gostin et al 15 (Lawrence O., Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights, JD from Duke University) “The Normative Authority of the World Health Organization,” Georgetown University Law Center, 5/2/2015 JL Members want the
AND
hold it accountable.
WHO is critical to disease prevention – it is the only international institution that can disperse information, standardize global public health, and facilitate public-private cooperation. Murtugudde 20 (Raghu, professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of Maryland, PhD in mechanical engineering from Columbia University) “Why We Need the World Health Organization Now More Than Ever,” Science, 4/19/2020 JL WHO continues to
AND
to implement IHR.
Extinction – defense is wrong. Piers Millett 17, Consultant for the World Health Organization, PhD in International Relations and Affairs, University of Bradford, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, “Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity”, Health Security, Vol 15(4), http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/hs.2017.0028 Historically, disease events
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward NR | Judge: Aryan Jasani WHO says yes – it supports increasing the availability of generics and limiting TRIPS Hoen 03 (Ellen T., researcher at the University Medical Centre at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands who has been listed as one of the 50 most influential people in intellectual property by the journal Managing Intellectual Property, PhD from the University of Groningen) “TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond,” Chicago Journal of International Law, 2003 JL However, subsequent resolutions
AND
of new drugs
The plan’s unilateral action by the WTO on medical IP undermines WHO legitimacy – forcing a perception of WHO action against patents is key to re-assert it – they say yes. Rimmer 04, Matthew. "The race to patent the SARS virus: the TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines." Melbourne Journal of International Law 5.2 (2004): 335-374. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1681117/Rimmer.pdf (BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Australian National University), PhD (New South Wales); Lecturer at ACIPA, the Faculty of Law, The Australian National University)SidK + Elmer The WHO has
AND
new infectious diseases
Consultation displays strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states which are key to WHO legitimacy Gostin et al 15 (Lawrence O., Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights, JD from Duke University) “The Normative Authority of the World Health Organization,” Georgetown University Law Center, 5/2/2015 JL Members want the
AND
hold it accountable.
WHO is critical to disease prevention – it is the only international institution that can disperse information, standardize global public health, and facilitate public-private cooperation. Murtugudde 20 (Raghu, professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of Maryland, PhD in mechanical engineering from Columbia University) “Why We Need the World Health Organization Now More Than Ever,” Science, 4/19/2020 JL WHO continues to
AND
to implement IHR.
Extinction – defense is wrong. Piers Millett 17, Consultant for the World Health Organization, PhD in International Relations and Affairs, University of Bradford, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, “Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity”, Health Security, Vol 15(4), http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/hs.2017.0028 Historically, disease events
Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Maya Xia Counterplan: the member nations of the World Trade Organization should organize an international effort to purchase women’s health medicines and distribute it equitably at no cost on a needs basis by declaring it a human right. Solves the aff – their solvency advocate is super vague and just says access needs to increase. 1AC Mike 2: Mike, Jennifer H. School of Law, American University of Nigeria, Yola, Nigeria, Nigeria “Access to essential medicines to guarantee women's rights to health: The pharmaceutical patents connection” Wiley Online Library, 2020. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwip.12161 JP The sum total
AND
through every avenue.
9/25/21
SO - DA - China Innovation
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Allison Aldridge The US is the world leader in biotech – China is narrowing the gap – biotech allows geopolitical and economic advantages. Moore 20, Scott. “ CHINA’S ROLE IN THE GLOBAL BIOTECHNOLOGY SECTOR AND IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY.” Brookings, Apr. 2020, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FP_20200427_china_biotechnology_moore.pdf. Even by the standards
AND
for U.S. policy.
Waiving IP surrenders crucial tech and national security info to China – propels them in the biotech race. Rogin 21, Josh. “Opinion | the Wrong Way to Fight Vaccine Nationalism.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Apr. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-wrong-way-to-fight-vaccine-nationalism/2021/04/08/9a65e15e-98a8-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html. Americans will not
AND
the same time.
China will leapfrog the US through biotech primacy. Cumbers 20 John Cumbers, “I am the founder and CEO of SynBioBeta, the leading community of innovators, investors, engineers, and thinkers who share a passion for using synthetic biology to build a better, more sustainable universe. I publish the weekly SynBioBeta Digest, host the SynBioBeta Podcast, and wrote “What’s Your Biostrategy?”, the first book to anticipate how synthetic biology is going to disrupt virtually every industry in the world. I also founded BetaSpace, a space settlement innovation network and community of visionaries, technologists, and investors accelerating the industries needed to sustain human life here and off-planet. I’ve been involved with multiple startups, I am an operating partner and investor at the hard tech investment fund Data Collective, and I'm a former bioengineer at NASA. I earned my PhD in Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry from Brown University and am originally from the UK.”) “China’s Plan To Beat The U.S. In The Trillion-Dollar Global Bioeconomy” Forbes, 2/3/2020 RM The report, entitled
AND
the new bioeconomy.
China biotech heg causes a laundry list of impacts. Moore 19 Scott Moore - Director of the Penn Global China Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Young Professional and Water Resources Management Specialist at the World Bank Group, and Environment, Science, Technology, and Health Officer for China at the U.S. Department of State, Giorgio Ruffolo Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, Truman, Fulbright, and Rhodes Scholar., Foreign Policy, "China's Genetic Experiments Are Pushing Ethical Limits", NOVEMBER 8, 2019, 2:53 PM, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/cloning-crispr-he-jiankui-china-biotech-boom-could-transform-lives-destroy-them/ - BD When James Clapper
AND
expensive to master.
China uses biotech gains for massive bio-military advantages over the US. Kuo 17, Mercy. “The Great US-China Biotechnology and Artificial Intelligence Race.” The Diplomat, 23 Aug. 2017, thediplomat.com/2017/08/the-great-us-china-biotechnology-and-artificial-intelligence-race/. Explain the motivation
AND
of specific populations.
9/11/21
SO - DA - Climate
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll AS | Judge: Sreyaash Das Climate patents and innovation high now and solving warming but patent waivers set a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 21, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry
AND
and required levels.
Extinction. Yangyang Xu and Ramanathan 17, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas AandM University; and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9/26/17, “Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 114, No. 39, p. 10315-10323 We are proposing
AND
(vertical dashed lines).
9/16/21
SO - DA - Innovation
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Gordan Krauss Pharma drug innovation is high now – eliminating patent protections collapses incentives. The Economist 20 5-23-2020 "Drug innovation is back in fashion" https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/23/drug-innovation-is-back-in-fashion (The Economist is an international weekly newspaper printed in magazine-format and published digitally that focuses on current affairs, international business, politics, and technology.)Elmer For much of
AND
public health, too.
Reductions in IPP decks innovation. Bacchus 20, James. “An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines.” Cato.org, 16 Dec. 2020, www.cato.org/free-trade-bulletin/unnecessary-proposal-wto-waiver-intellectual-property-rights-covid-19-vaccines.JQ The primary justification
AND
of IP rights.19
Only pharma innovation solves global pandemics that risk extinction. Jeffrey Sachs 14, Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University, Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) “Important lessons from Ebola outbreak,” Business World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro Ebola is the
AND
and disease-causing agents.
10/16/21
SO - DA - US-China Relations
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Megan Wu Despite growing rivalry, US-China economic interdependence strong now. Exchange of tech know-how, collaboration science research, and massive US-China STEM pipeline improving relations – but it can easily collapse. Hass 21Ryan Hass (Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center The Michael H. Armacost Chair Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies Nonresident Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School), 8-12-2021, "The “new normal” in US-China relations: Hardening competition and deep interdependence," Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/08/12/the-new-normal-in-us-china-relations-hardening-competition-and-deep-interdependence/ belle The intensification of
AND
trend will continue.
Plan hurts US-China relations – means China goes back on it’s promise to regulate IP violations and draws in U.S. crackdown. Shape 21 Steven M. Shape; registered patent attorney and electrical engineer who has represented preeminent technology companies in complex, high-stakes Intellectual Property litigation; 2-19-2021, "IP Law Looms Large Over U.S.-China Relations," No Publication, https://www.mondaq.com/trademark/1038030/ip-law-looms-large-over-us-china-relations belle The U.S. and China
AND
for their intangible assets.
AI destabilizing but dialogues key to peaceful AI – anything else risks escalation to nuclear war. Haotian 21 Qi Haotian (assistant professor in the School of International Studies at Peking University, where he teaches courses on international security, military science, international public policy, and game theory. He is also secretary general of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding at Peking University. His research interests include technological transitions and world politics, international security and conflict management, and methodology and philosophy of social science) April 2021, " US AND CHINESE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES," United States Institute of Peace, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/pw_172-enhancing_us-china_strategic_stability_in_an_era_of_strategic_competition_us_and_chinese_perspectives.pdf belle The rapid decision-making features
Tournament: Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Victor Chen Intellectual property rights cannot be discriminated on the basis of field, or place of invention WTO 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 Subject to the
AND
or locally produced.
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 collapses Horton, 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
The WTO is
AND
its leading saboteur.
A major country operating outside WTO consensus wrecks global trade norms Bacchus 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 In a sign
AND
the patent holders.
Without all states buy in, we risk WW3 but with nukes Hopewell 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 What has this
AND
new director-general Dr Okonjo-Iweala?
9/26/21
SO - NC - Kant
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Plano East AG | Judge: Serena Lu Ethics must begin a priori: 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 Bindingness – I can keep asking “why should I follow this” which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking “why reason?” requires reason which concedes its authority and equally proves agency as constitutive That means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Prefer the standard: a 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. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others b Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.
The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanity Van Dyke 2 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS Also, allowing the
AND
from legitimate exigencies.
IPs are a necessary check on companies free-riding off associations of quality. Wong et al 20 Liana, Ian, and Shayerah; Analyst in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; “Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade,” *Updated* 5/12/20; CRS; https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200512_RL34292_2023354cc06b0a4425a2c5e02c0b13024426d206.pdf Justin Trademark protection in
AND
with the PTO.
9/19/21
SO - T - Actor
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Cardinal Gibbons RS | Judge: Stuckert, Castillo, Kotamraju Interpretation: The aff may not specify a specific actor eliminating intellectual property protections for medicines. Violation: Standards:
Limits – you can pick anything from yourself vaccines to Spongebob to random countries and there’s no universal disad since each one has a different function and implication for policy and relations – explodes neg prep and leads to random thing of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible.
2. TVA – read the aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff.
9/19/21
SO - T - Marijuana
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll AS | Judge: Sreyaash Das Interpretation – Marijuana isn’t a medicine. Mosley 20, Mark. "Medical Marijuana Is a Dangerous Lie." Emergency Medicine News 42.8 (2020): 2-3. (Dr. Mark Mosley is an emergency medicine physician in Wichita, Kansas and is affiliated with Wesley Healthcare Center. He received his medical degree from University of Oklahoma College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years.)Elmer Marijuana is not
Limits and ground. Expanding the definition of “medicine” to anything that could be used in a medical setting floods the neg with cases to prep for – everything from new methods of chemo to upgrading stethoscopes becomes topical. At best – they’re extra-T since Cannabis isn’t intrinsically medicinal, it just has medicinal uses so they would reduce Recreational Marijuana patents too which isn’t topical and explodes limits. Johnson 20 Ian Johnson 1-20-2020 "Cannabis Patents 2000 – 2019: Trends Following Legalization" https://plantlaw.com/2020/01/20/cannabis-trends-medical-recreational/ (Registered Patent Agent, Plant and Planet Law Firm)Elmer These findings correspond
AND
cannabis patent activity.
Paradigm: Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. DTD – Time spent on theory cant be compensated for, the 1nc was already skewed, and its key to deterring abuse. Prefer Competing interps -
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. 2. it Causes a race to the bottom where debaters push the limit as to how reasonably abusive, they can be. No RVI’s -
Chills some debaters from reading theory against abusive postions. 2. incentivizes theory baiting where you can just bait theory to win.
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll AS | Judge: Sreyaash Das Interpretation: Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from “waive” or “suspend.” Reynolds 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, lexis) Section 83's counterpart
AND
to indicate permanency. Violation: Standards:
Neg Ground – Core neg generics like innovation and biotech heg are predicated on scope of effect – minor modifications in how long a patent lasts for or what it effects allows the 1AR to minimize our links to zero which destroys being neg on a topic w/ very little generic ground. 2. Limits – Allowing affs to make patent modifications explodes aff ground by three-fold because for all four intellectual property protections for every medicine MULTIPLIED by different time modifications, different scope modifications which makes predictable preparation and in-depth clash impossible. 2. TVA solves – permanently reduce Paradigm: Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. DTD – Time spent on theory cant be compensated for, the 1nc was already skewed, and its key to deterring abuse. Prefer Competing interps -
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. 2. it Causes a race to the bottom where debaters push the limit as to how reasonably abusive, they can be. No RVI’s -
Chills some debaters from reading theory against abusive postions. 2. incentivizes theory baiting where you can just bait theory to win.
9/16/21
SO - T - WTO
Tournament: Valley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Victor Chen Interp – topical affs must fiat an action through the World Trade Organization. Member nations of the WTO make policies as a whole – WTO ND (World Trade Organization) “What is the WTO?” https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm BC The WTO is
Violation – they don’t – EU member states are distinct from WTO member nations Prefer
Ground – justifies affs about any country reducing any IP protection on medicine – only our interp ensures link magnitude by ensuring it is an international reduction for IPP for medicine which is key to generics like the innovation DA, WTO bad, consult the WHO, and the IP NC -- privileges the aff by stretching pre-tournament neg prep too thin and precluding nuanced rigorous testing of aff. 2. Topic ed – WTO patent wavers are the core topic controversy – their aff is just domestic policy passed in European Union Member states. Proven by their second advantage – none of their internal links are about medical trade secrets which proves their interpretation is a cheap way of getting a relations impact about any two countries that does trade – justifies the US-Mexico or China-Japan aff. Outweighs aff flex -- prep is determined by the lit and we only have 2 months to debate the topic and it provides better link magnitude to all your generics because this is the statis point the topic is centered around. 3. Precision - even if all EU member states are in the WTO that doesn’t mean all WTO member nations are in the EU – prefer our interp – we have evidence from the WTO that explains what coordinated action looks like. Paradigm issues:
Drop the debater – their abusive advocacy skewed the debate from the start 2. Competing interps – reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation 3. Fairness is a voter ¬– necessary to determine the better debater 4. Education is a voter – why schools fund debate
9/26/21
SO - Theory - ESPEC
Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Megan Wu Interpretation – the Affirmative must present a delineated enforcement mechanism for the Plan. To clarify they must state in in their speech - There is no normal means since terms are negotiated contextually among member states. WTO "Whose WTO is it anyway?" https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org1_e.htmElmer When WTO rules
AND
to withhold credit. Violation: “through the states” doesn’t cut it Standards:
Shiftiness- They can redefine the 1AC’s enforcement mechanism in the 1AR which allows them to recontextualize their enforcement mechanism to wriggle out of DA’s since all DA links are predicated on type of enforcement i.e. sanctions bad das, domestic politics das off of backlash, information research sharing da if they put monetary punishments, or trade das. 2. Real World - Policy makers will always specify how the mandates of the plan should be endorsed. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, states can circumvent the Aff’s policy since there is no delineated way to enforce the affirmative which means there’s no way to actualize any of their solvency arguments. ESpec isn’t regressive or arbitrary- it’s an active part of the WTO is central to any advocacy about international IP law since the only uniqueness of a reduction of IP protections is how effective its enforcement is. Paradigm: 1NC theory first - 1 Abuse was self-inflicted- They started the chain of abuse and forced me down this strategy 2 Norming- We have more speeches to norm over whether it’s a good idea since the shell was read earlier.
Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity governed by rules. You can’t evaluate who did better debating if the round is structurally skewed, so fairness is a gateway to substantive debate. DTD – Time spent on theory cant be compensated for, the 1nc was already skewed, and its key to deterring abuse. Prefer Competing interps -
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. 2. it Causes a race to the bottom where debaters push the limit as to how reasonably abusive, they can be. No RVI’s -
Chills some debaters from reading theory against abusive postions. 2. incentivizes theory baiting where you can just bait theory to win.