Olympia Elsakhawy Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duke Invitational | 2 | Apex Friendship EM | Raghavan, Badri |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | 4 | Lexington MA | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | 6 | Acton-Boxborough AA | Lamberson, Eva |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | Octas | Edgemont Junior-Senior AJ | Brown, Grant Dunn, Katie Braithwaite, X |
|
|
| |
| Duke Invitational | Quarters | Colonial Forge SR | Lamberson, Eva Hsu, Jonathan Kawolics, Richard |
|
|
| |
| FFL Varsity States | 1 | American Herit MA Emilin Mathew | Becca Traber |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | Clown | Circus |
|
|
| |
| Information | Finals | NA | NA |
|
|
| |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 1 | Bronx Science BC | Braithwaite, X |
|
|
| |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 4 | Stuyvesant LC | Eberhart, Henry |
|
|
| |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 6 | Princeton CB | PARTH MISRA |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Durham ZG | Menon, Uma |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Lexington MS | Palmer, Jacob |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 1 | Acton-Boxborough AM | Raghavan, Badri |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 6 | Acton-Boxborough AK | Smith, Aeryn |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 4 | Strake Jesuit MS | Wood, Tyler |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Duke Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Apex Friendship EM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri AC - Trad (Access) NC - Trad (Innovation and Biotech) 1AR - Case 2NR - Case 2AR - Case |
| Duke Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Lexington MA | Judge: Anthony Cui AC - Politics of Renaturalization FW Biodiversity Advantage NC - New Affs Bad Shell ROB Spec Shell Comic Sans Shell Case 1AR - Potential Interps Shell 2NR - ROB Spec Shell 2AR - Potential Interps Shell |
| Duke Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AA | Judge: Lamberson, Eva AC - Trad (Access and Innovation) NC - Trad (Innovation and Biotech) 1AR - Case 2NR - Case 2AR - Case |
| Duke Invitational | Octas | Opponent: Edgemont Junior-Senior AJ | Judge: Brown, Grant Dunn, Katie Braithwaite, X AC - Reducing IP for undisclosed information - innovation insulin production antibiotic resistance NC - T-Prevent Biotech DA WTO Aid CP 1AR - T-Prevent Insulin Biotech DA WTO Aid CP 2NR - T-Prevent WTO Aid CP Insulin 2AR - T-Prevent WTO Aid CP Insulin |
| Duke Invitational | Quarters | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Lamberson, Eva Hsu, Jonathan Kawolics, Richard AC - Trad (Access Innovation Warming) NC - Trad (Innovation Biotech) 1AR - Case 2NR - Case 2AR - Case |
| FFL Varsity States | 1 | Opponent: American Herit MA Emilin Mathew | Judge: Becca Traber AC - Communitarianism |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Information |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Information |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Information |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Information |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: Clown | Judge: Circus Information |
| Information | Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Information |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 1 | Opponent: Bronx Science BC | Judge: Braithwaite, X AC - Biopower |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Eberhart, Henry AC - Asteroid Mining NC - Jurisdiction spec shell T-Mining Mining DA 1AR - War scenario Spec shell T-Mining Mining DA 2NR - T-Mining mining DA 2AR - RVI |
| LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | 6 | Opponent: Princeton CB | Judge: PARTH MISRA Forfeit lmao |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Opponent: Durham ZG | Judge: Menon, Uma AC - Trad Feminism Aff |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Opponent: Lexington MS | Judge: Palmer, Jacob AC - SemiocapDisability Pess K |
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri AC - One-and-done patents 1AR - One-and-done patents perm 2NR - Spec shell biotech DA 2AR - One-and-done patents |
| Yale | 6 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Smith, Aeryn AC - Trad NC - New Affs Bad Shell Innovation DA WTO Aid CP Case 1AR - Case 2NR - Innovation DA WTO Aid CP Case 2AR - Case |
| Yale | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Wood, Tyler AC - Pandemics Vaccine Diplomacy 1NC - T-Reduce T-Prevent Spec Shell WTO Aid CP 1AR - Vaccine Diplomacy RVIs Exclusion IVI 2NR - T-Prevent 2AR - RVIs Exclusion IVI |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Pronouns: He/Him Phone: +1 (407) 367-8950 | 9/16/21 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA | 9/16/21 |
0 - DisclosureTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA | 9/16/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA | 9/16/21 |
0 - Side of the race warTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: Clown | Judge: Circus | 9/16/21 |
1AC Preemptive Shells SpecTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington MS | Judge: Palmer, Jacob 3Interpretation – if the aff reads a preemptive 1AC theory shell, they must specify what a violation would look like in the 1AC.Violation – you read AFC but didn't say what a violation looks like. Meeting the shell could look like saying "any role of the ballot or framework violates"Vote neg~1~ Absent specification you can shift a violation into the 1NC ie. I could read truth testing or a fairness voter and concede the shell thinking the shell only applies to ethical frameworks but the 1AR can shift into the violation which kills fairness.~2~ Contestation – the warrants for the counterinterp to AFC change based on what violates. If truth testing violates it would have a different abuse story than if only contesting the ethical framework violates. Absent spec that kills norming – norming is an independent voter because it's the terminal impact of theory. This is also a reason why you should err negative and give new 2NR responses on the counterinterp because they skewed my counterinterp | 12/4/21 |
2 - Comic Sans ShellTournament: Duke Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington MA | Judge: Anthony Cui Comic SansInterp: debaters must use comic sans as their font in their speech docs.Violation – the doc is in _Prefer -Inclusion – comic sans is easiest to read for people with dyslexia.Hudgins 17 "Hating Comic Sans Is Ableist" Lauren Hudgins Feb 23, 2017 https://medium.com/the-establishment/hating-comic-sans-is-ableist-bc4a4de87093 OHS-AT To pre-empt the 1AR - the ability to change the font doesn't solve – it's ableist to expect them to do something for your aesthetic preference.Hudgins 17 "Hating Comic Sans Is Ableist" Lauren Hudgins Feb 23, 2017 https://medium.com/the-establishment/hating-comic-sans-is-ableist-bc4a4de87093 OHS-AT Inclusion's an independent voter – you have to be in debate to gain from it and it's a gateway issue because it ensures everyone benefits from the activity since it's how people get scholarships, make friends, and improve critical thinking skills. | 10/2/21 |
2 - Jurisdiction SpecTournament: LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Eberhart, Henry Interp: The affirmative must specify jurisdiction in a delimited text in the 1AC.Jurisdiction is flexible and has too many interps – normal means shows no consensus and makes the round irresolvable since the judge doesn't know how to compare between types of offense and o/w since it's a side constraint on decision making – independently turns judicial application.Maggie Koerth-Baker, 15 ~Maggie Koerth-Baker, (Maggie Koerth, formerly known as Maggie Koerth-Baker, is an American science journalist. She is a senior science editor at FiveThirtyEight and was previously a science editor at Boing Boing and a monthly columnist for The New York Times Magazine.)~. "Who Makes the Rules for Outer Space?." No Publication, 10-30-2005, Accessed 12-13-2021. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/space-law/ duongie But while the rules of empire are pretty neatly spelled out in the treaty—no nukes, no planting a flag and claiming anything in space as your country's territory—the rules of commerce aren't quite as clear-cut. Now, almost 50 years later, with a private space race underway in the United States, lawyers and politicians are starting to really hash out what it means for a government to be responsible for a corporation and what the fair use of space should look like. With President Barack Obama's signing of the U.S. Commercial Space Law and Competitiveness Act, it's a discussion that's likely to grow more heated. Basics of Space Law A fundamental tenet of space law—the concept of governments being responsible for the work of non-governmental actors—has few, if any, precedents. There are places on Earth that are governed by laws similar to those that govern space—the sea, for instance. But no country is inherently responsible for whatever its citizens do when they're out in international waters, says Joanne Gabrynowicz, professor of space law at the University of Mississippi and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Space Law . If that were the case, every pirate would technically be a privateer—their buckles swashed with official state approval. But you don't need anything as exotic as the specter of space privateering to see why government responsibility can be a problem. As it currently stands, two private companies operating in space couldn't even sue each other without the prior approval of their governments, says Michael Listner, an attorney and the principal of Space Law and Policy Solutions, a legal think tank. Currently, this is an issue that primarily affects the U.S. There are lots of countries with commercial, but not necessarily private, operations in space—Russia, China, Canada, Japan. Commercial entities launch rockets and manage satellites all the time. But in most of those cases, "commercial" basically means "revenue generating," not "private enterprise," Gabrynowicz says. Some of the corporations operating in space are government-owned, while others are technically private but operate with levels of government control and government money that would be unfamiliar to Americans, says Fabio Tronchetti, associate professor of law at China's Harbin Institute of Technology. Government Minders The U.S. has the largest and most important private sector operating in space, from launching people and supplies for NASA to more speculative companies dedicated to space tourism and asteroid mining. Many of those companies would prefer there be less government involvement in their business. For instance, Bigelow Aerospace is a company that designs and builds inflatable pods that humans can live in in orbit—one of their pods will be attached to the International Space Station next year—or on a surface like the moon. For many years, Bigelow had to treat its products, legally, as though it were dealing in arms, wrangling with export controls meant to prevent guns, bombs, and valuable military secrets from being sold to the wrong people, stolen, or accidentally exposed. Even the most innocuous, non-weaponizable parts of their system fell under these controls. At one point, the company was forced to have two government officials watching two guards who were protecting a coffee-table-shaped kickstand for their pod. When the company had technical interchange meetings with partners in Moscow, it had to pay to bring along government minders. "If you dropped an alien in the room and said 'point to the free country,' they would have pointed to the Russians because we had two government monitors monitoring our every word," says Mike Gold, Bigelow's director of operations and business growth. "We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on that. I would joke that KGB would spy on you, but at least they had the courtesy to do it for free." That problem was solved by changes to U.S. export control rules in 2013, but cutting back on regulations still remains a popular mantra in the industry. Among several features of the U.S. Commercial Space Law and Competitiveness Act is the extension of a moratorium on regulation for human spaceflight safety requirements. The bill also leaves open a regulatory hole, wherein the Federal Aviation Administration licenses and monitors launches and re-entries, but there is no federal authority in charge of activities that happen in orbit. Gabrynowicz thinks this is problematic because the U.S. government also has a risk-sharing regime with these companies where it indemnifies them beyond their insurance coverage. The bill extends that, as well. So, she says, the government is responsible for the companies by authority of international law, the government will pay for any particularly large financial damages incurred by the companies, and the government is reducing or not establishing regulations on those companies. To Gabrynowicz, that looks like a moral hazard. Privatizing the Space Race The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 did a good job of keeping the space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union from devolving into something out of a James Bond movie. But it didn't do a very good job of planning for future races to claim resources found in space. Article II of the treaty is just 30 words long. It says, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." Today, space lawyers are spending an awful lot of time debating what, exactly, that means. Lawyers are split pretty evenly on whether you can mine an asteroid and profit from it. The debate has been spurred by the handful of companies that have announced an interest in mining asteroids or the moon for minerals and other resources. None of these plans are likely to become reality in the next 20 years. In fact, it's still debatable whether mining an asteroid is technically feasible or would make financial sense at all. But the companies interested in this business plan—including Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries—want some kind of assurance that, if they do succeed, they will get to profit off what they dig up. That's a reasonable request…but it's assurance that the Outer Space Treaty can't unequivocally offer. "There's a spurious argument that, well, the State can't appropriate, but I can!" Johnson says. "But that's easily refuted. Property exists as a relationship between citizen and sovereign. You only get property rights based on the State." We buy and sell property with the help of legal contracts. Those contracts are only real in so much as a state exists to enforce them. At best, say Johnson, Listner, Gabrynowicz, and Tronchetti, you can say that the Outer Space Treaty neither affirms nor denies the right of a private company to mine an asteroid, keep what it mines, and sell those resources for profit. Lawyers, Listner says, are split pretty evenly on whether that means you can do it or you can't. Which is where the U.S. Commercial Space Law Competitiveness Act comes in, again. One of the most important things the bill does is say, explicitly, that U.S. companies can own and sell resources they mine. But the new law could become a problem, space lawyers say. Essentially, it's the U.S. trying to unilaterally settle an open question. "It's really an ideological and intellectual battle," Listner says. Even more troubling, from the perspective of Gabrynowicz and Tronchetti is the fact that the Space Resource and Utilization Act doesn't set up any system for licensing those mining activities. Given that the Outer Space Treaty obliges countries to maintain control over companies operating in space, that could be seen as the U.S. refusing to follow international law, Gabrynowicz says. Uncharted Territory Space lawyers can point out many other potential problems with the U.S. Commercial Space Law and Competitiveness Act, but the repercussions depend on what other countries decide to do. Historically, ever since the Outer Space Treaty was signed, countries have worked out their differences off the books, in bilateral negotiations. That happened in 1978, when a Soviet Kosmos satellite, powered by an onboard nuclear reactor, crashed in western Canada. That country initially billed the Soviet Union more than $6 million to cover the costs of cleanup and containment. Ultimately, the two countries came to an agreement where the Soviets paid half that amount and never formally had to acknowledge liability. "More recently, you had a piece of Chinese debris that crashed into a Russian satellite," Tronchetti says. "Essentially, they just let that go." So what happens if the United States decides companies can own minerals mined on an asteroid and another country, China say, decides they can't? "That's the problem, isn't it?" Tronchetti says. "Nobody knows. But we should think about international consequences." Gabrynowicz, for instance, worries that making unilateral decisions about space law could affect efforts to negotiate the rules that manage disputed places here on Earth, like the Arctic, where Russia, the U.S., and other countries are currently jockeying for access to oil and other resources. The geopolitical climate isn't amenable to a new space treaty. In theory, a new treaty would solve all of these problems. But nobody thinks it would work. The Outer Space Treaty succeeded, Johnson says, because there were really only two parties at the table back then—the U.S. and the Soviet Union. "They just said, 'Let's come up with compromise text and then take it to the rest of the world and tell them we've agreed. We're the most important people doing anything in space and everyone else will just go along,' " he says. Needless to say, that's not how things work today. Even just a few years after the passage of the Outer Space Treaty, in 1979, an expanded document known as the Moon Treaty failed to draw any interest from the U.S. or the Soviets. That treaty would have clarified some of the issues the Outer Space Treaty left vague, including banning commercial sale and use of extraterrestrial resources. Only 16 countries are part of the treaty—none of them a major spacefaring nation. The geopolitical climate isn't amenable to a new space treaty, Johnson says. There are too many stakeholders now and their goals don't align enough. "The era of treaty making has really been over since the 1980s," Johnson says. Now, the future of space is in the hands of the diplomats and lawyers who will hash out bespoke compromises in backrooms and boardrooms all over the world.Violation – you don't.Prefer –1~ Stable Advocacy – they can redefine in the 1AR to wriggle out of DA's which kills high-quality engagement and becomes two ships passing in the night – triggers presumption since the aff wasn't subject to well researched scrutiny. We lose access to Tech Race DA's, Asteroid DA's, basic case turns, and core process counter plans that have different definitions and 1NC pre-round prep.2~ Ground – not defining hurts my strategy since they can shift out as I ask DA questions, so I err on the side of caution and read generics which get destroyed by AC frontlines.3~ Real World – Policy makers will always how they are implementing a law. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, private entities can circumvent since there is no delineated way to enforce the aff and means their solvency can't actualize.ESspec isn't regressive or arbitrary – its core topic lit for what happens when the aff is implemented and cannot be discounted from policies that require enforcement to function.Fairness and education are voters – debate's a game that needs rules to evaluate it and is the reason why schools fund debateDrop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation which leads to severance in the 1ar which ow/s on magnitude b) to deter future abuse, big punishment incentivizes people to stop bad practicesCompeting interps – a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a) illogical – you shouldn't win for being fair – it's a litmus test for engaging in substance b) norming – I can't concede the counterinterp if I realize I'm wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms, c) chilling effect – forces you to split your 2AR so you can't collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blip storm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory d) Double Bind – either 1) my Theory shell is unwarranted in which case you shouldn't have any problem answering it or 2) you're actually abusive in which case the whole shell stands and outweighs. | 1/15/22 |
2 - New Affs BadTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri New Affs BadInterpretation—the aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message.Violation—they didn't – I have screenshots.Vote neg for prep and clash—two internal links—a) neg prep—4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics—30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative b) aff quality—plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn't inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, it should lose—this will answer the 1ar's claim about innovation—with 30 minutes of prep, there's still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can't check against the broader literature.Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. People would not participate if the space was not fair. Outweighs and controls the internal link to fairness since without participation topic education is mooted.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse, b~ set better norms for debate and c~ we indict the entire advocacy – dta makes no sense.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practicesNo 1ar theory –1~ Time skew – Forces me to answer the shell, which distracts from substance – substantive clash is k2 education and 1ar theory distracts from it.2~ Judge intervention – I only have 1 speech to answer it and no 3NR which means that the judge has to intervene and decide if my answers were good enough after taking into account to 2ars lies.3~ Reciprocity – I only have once chance to respond after it is introduced while they have two chances4~ Persuasive spin in the 2ar appeals to judges more ows on judge psychology bc they will always win that debate | 10/2/21 |
2 - Potential InterpsTournament: Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Interpretation: The affirmative debater may not read necessary burdens for themselves but is also an insufficient burden for me. To clarify they cannot read nibs. Interpretation—the aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message. Interpretation: The aff must specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:
Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source in an accessible format on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them in conjunction with a highlighted version. Interp: debaters must use comic sans as their font in their speech docs. | 10/2/21 |
2 - Spec ShellTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri SpecInterpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in the 1AC plan text.Four types of IP that are vastly different.Ackerman 17 ~Peter; Founder and CEO, Innovation Asset Group, Inc; "The 4 Main Types of Intellectual Property and Related Costs," Decipher; 1/6/17; https://www.innovation-asset.com/blog/the-4-main-types-of-intellectual-property-and-related-costs~~ Justin Violation: They do not.Negate:1~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what intellectual properties the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific IP DAs, IP PICs, and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing.CX can't resolve this and is bad because A~ Not flowed B~ Skews 6 min of prep and pre-round prep C~ They can lie and no way to check D~ Debaters can be shady.2~ Real World- policy makers will always specify what the object of change is. That outweighs since debate has no value without portable application. It also means zero solvency since the WTO, absent spec, can circumvent aff's policy since they can say they didn't know what was affected.This spec shell isn't regressive- it literally determines what the affirmative implements and who it affectsFairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. People would not participate if the space was not fair. Outweighs and controls the internal link to fairness since without participation topic education is mooted.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse, b~ set better norms for debate and c~ we indict the entire advocacy – dta makes no sense.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there's no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don't win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it's a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practicesNo 1ar theory –1~ Time skew – Forces me to answer the shell, which distracts from substance – substantive clash is k2 education and 1ar theory distracts from it.2~ Judge intervention – I only have 1 speech to answer it and no 3NR which means that the judge has to intervene and decide if my answers were good enough after taking into account to 2ars lies.3~ Reciprocity – I only have once chance to respond after it is introduced while they have two chances4~ Persuasive spin in the 2ar appeals to judges more ows on judge psychology bc they will always win that debate5~ DTA Solves – they can indict the arguments that are abusive and I have strategic options to respond | 10/2/21 |
2 - T-FW Space TopicTournament: LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bronx Science BC | Judge: Braithwaite, X Our Interpretation is the affirmative should instrumentally defend the resolution – hold the line, CX and the 1AC prove there's no I-meet – anything new in the 1AR is either extra-T since it includes the non-topical parts of the Aff or effects-T since it's a future result of the advocacy which both link to our offense."Resolved" requires a policy.Merriam Webster '18 (Merriam Webster; 2018 Edition; Online dictionary and legal resource; Merriam Webster, "resolve," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve; RP)
Resolved requires policy actionLouisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong AppropriationTIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, '13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ Outer spaceLexico. Oxford Dictionary. Outer Space. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/outer_space Private entitiesLaw Insider. Private entity definition. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/private-entity First - Fairness – radically re-contextualizing the resolution lets them defend any method tangentially related to the topic exploding Limits, which erases neg ground via perms and renders research burdens untenable by eviscerating predictable limits. Procedural questions come first – debate is a game and it makes no sense to skew a competitive activity as it requires effective negation which incentivizes argument refinement, but skewed burdens deck pedagogical engagement.Fairness turns the Aff – 1~ Solutions to status quo unfairness should not be to remove them for all but work to ensure that fairness in every instance is remedied and 2~ An unlimited topic hurts low-income and minority debaters by allowing big schools infinite capacity to break non-T Affs – for people who can't afford to work on debate full-time due to income concerns, their interp says unless you prep out every possible Aff, they lose 3~ Bound up in the logicFairness, also outweighs1~ its an independent impact and prior to the aff intrinsically true in the context of a competitive activity, before you feel comfortable voting aff, you should determine the fair basis to adjudicate substance its contradictory to vote on fairness bad you have no obligation to evaluate their arguments or conclude the aff is a good idea, which proves the lack of fairness renders the activity incoherent2~ Scope, it's the only impact you can solve for, voting for them doesn't resolve antiblackness in debate but voting for T remedies procedural inequalities caused by their aff3~ Only way the game works, undergirds competitive incentive to research and prep engage and clash for argumentative evaluation, OOR and prep solves their education offense, but fairness ensures that this hour is productive, this protects under resourced debaters from impossible research burdens, their version makes debate pay to play, but our model makes that better by forcing large teams to be bound to the topicSecond - Clash – picking any grounds for debate precludes the only common point of engagement, which obviates preround research and incentivizes retreat from controversy by eliminating any effective clash. Only the process of negation distinguishes debate and discussion by necessitating iterative testing and effective engagement, but an absence of constant refinement dooms revolutionary potential.Third – SSD – their model that allows them to side-step the topic on both the Aff and Neg hurts debate as a site of role experimentation – choosing to individually engage both sides solves argument refinement and self-reflexivity breeding constantly evolving methodology which is key to activist resistance BUT side-stepping it ingrains ideological dogmatism by imposing artificial lines in the sand for what not to experiment replicating imperial ideologies about exclusion.Fourth- Debate is imperfect, but only our interpretation can harness legal education to understand the law's strategic reversibility paired with intellectual survival skills.Archer 18, Deborah N. "Political Lawyering for the 21st Century." Denv. L. Rev. 96 (2018): 399. (Associate Professor of Clinical Law at NYU School of Law)Elmer TVA – ~Affirm the public trust doctrine aff which solves legal ambiguity of space colonization by shutting out IP rights, then apply those spillover policies to rights~TVA is terminal defense – proves our models aren't mutually exclusive - any response to the substance of the TVA is offense for us because it proves our model allows for clear contestation. Form over Content doesn't take it out since we don't restrict Form, just the substantive burden of the Aff.Prefer Competing Interpretations – reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom. This means reject Aff Impact Turns predicated on their theory since we weren't able to adequately prepare for it. | 1/15/22 |
2 - T-MiningTournament: LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Eberhart, Henry Interp – space mining isn't appropriation – its not permanent and OST consensus.hHofmann and Bergamasco 19 ~Mahulena Hofmann (SES Chair in Space, SatCom and Media Law at the University of Luxembourg) and Federico Bergamasco (PhD Researcher in aviation, telecommunication and space law University of Luxembourg). "Space resources activities from the perspective of sustainability: legal aspects". Global Sustainability. 9 December 2019. Accessed 12/18/21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DF153F4A77970AC9E12444EC2B001F8A/S2059479819000279a.pdf/div-class-title-space-resources-activities-from-the-perspective-of-sustainability-legal-aspects-div.pdf Xu~ OST is the standard for space law.Wikipedia No Date ~Wikipedia. "Outer Space Treaty." No Date. Accessed 12/18/21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty Xu~ Semantics o/w –a~ Precision – they can arbitrarily jettison words which decks ground and preparation because there is no stasis pointb~ Jurisdiction – the judge doesn't have the authority to vote aff if it wasn't legitimateVote for predictable limits – their aff explodes the object of the resolution to include random space activities from tourism to research to satellite surveillance – that allows them to cherry-pick the best aff with no neg ground – also kills predictable advocacies which decks prepared engagement. | 1/15/22 |
2 - T-PreventTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Wood, Tyler T-PreventInterpretation: The affirmative debater must defend reducing intellectual property protections for substances that treat diseases. To clarify, they may not defend substances that prevent diseases.Violation: They defend .Medicines treat diseasesWebster (Merriam Webster is America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information, accessed on 6-30-21, Merriam Webster, "Definition of MEDICINE," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine)// ww pbj Treatment is different than preventionPflanzer 20 (Lydia Ramsey Pflanzer is a healthcare editor for Business Insider. She joined Business Insider in 2015 after graduating from Northwestern University, 4-29-2020, accessed 6/30/21, "Scientists are racing to discover ways to treat and prevent coronavirus. Here's the difference between a treatment and a vaccine.," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-vaccine-and-a-treatment-2020-4)//ww pbj Vaccines specifically are different from medicinesImmunize BC 20 (Immunize British Colombia is a collaborative project of the BC Ministry of Health, the BC Centre for Disease Control (an agency of the BC Provincial Health Services Authority), the regional health authorities (First Nations Health Authority, Fraser Health, Interior Health, Island Health, Northern Health and Vancouver Coastal Health), the BC Pharmacy Association and the Public Health Association of BC. Our mission is to improve the health of British Columbians by continuing to reduce the number of vaccine-preventable diseases, along with the illness, disability and death that they cause, What are vaccines?, Date last reviewed: Thursday, Mar 19, 2020, accessed on 6-30-21, https://immunizebc.ca/what-are-vaccines)//ww pbj Standards:~1~ Limits – they explode the topic to include tons of substances that prevent disease rather than treat them like soap, medical supplies, or food and make it so there is no unified neg generics. The aff still gets the core of the topic lit: they get medicine, innovation, and global inequality. Explosion of aff ground makes neg prep burden impossible, either killing neg ground or forcing the neg to read generics that barely link, always letting aff win. Force the 1AR to read a definition card with a clear list of what's included and excluded – otherwise, vote neg since they can't put a clear limit on the topic. Our interp solves – it establishes a clear bright-line for that gives the neg a chance to predict and prepare for every aff ahead of time. At best, the aff's extra-T still links to all our offense since they can get extra-T advantages to solve disads and defend whatever they want, magnifying limits.~2~ Precision – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which a~ means they're not within the topic which is a voter for jurisdiction since you can only vote affirmative on the resolution and this debate never should have happened, b~ they're unpredictable and impossible to engage in so we always loseDrop the Debater –~1~ sets a precedent that debaters wont be abusive~2~ DTA is the same since you drop the affVoters:~1~ Fairness – constitutive to the judge to decide the better debater, only fairness is in your jurisdiction because it skews decision making~2~ Education – the only portable education from debate that we care aboutDTD:~1~ it drops the whole AC so dta is the same thing.~2~ deters future abuse since wins and losses determine the activity's direction.Competing Interps:~1~ reasonability on t is incoherent: you're either topical or you're not – it's impossible to be 77 topical, links to all limits offense~2~ functionally the same as reasonability – we debate over a specified briteline which is a counter interp~3~ judge intervention – judge has to intervene on what's reasonable, creates a race to the bottom where debaters exploit judge tolerance for questionable argumentation.No RVIs~1~ illogical for you to get offense just for being fair – it's the 1ac's burden~2~ baiting - rvi's incentivize debaters to read abusive positions to win off theoryInterpretation: The affirmative debater must defend reducing intellectual property protections for substances that treat diseases. To clarify, they may not defend substances that prevent diseases.Violation: They defend .Medicines treat diseasesWebster (Merriam Webster is America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information, accessed on 6-30-21, Merriam Webster, "Definition of MEDICINE," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine)// ww pbj Treatment is different than preventionPflanzer 20 (Lydia Ramsey Pflanzer is a healthcare editor for Business Insider. She joined Business Insider in 2015 after graduating from Northwestern University, 4-29-2020, accessed 6/30/21, "Scientists are racing to discover ways to treat and prevent coronavirus. Here's the difference between a treatment and a vaccine.," Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-vaccine-and-a-treatment-2020-4)//ww pbj Vaccines specifically are different from medicinesImmunize BC 20 (Immunize British Colombia is a collaborative project of the BC Ministry of Health, the BC Centre for Disease Control (an agency of the BC Provincial Health Services Authority), the regional health authorities (First Nations Health Authority, Fraser Health, Interior Health, Island Health, Northern Health and Vancouver Coastal Health), the BC Pharmacy Association and the Public Health Association of BC. Our mission is to improve the health of British Columbians by continuing to reduce the number of vaccine-preventable diseases, along with the illness, disability and death that they cause, What are vaccines?, Date last reviewed: Thursday, Mar 19, 2020, accessed on 6-30-21, https://immunizebc.ca/what-are-vaccines)//ww pbj Standards:~1~ Limits – they explode the topic to include tons of substances that prevent disease rather than treat them like soap, medical supplies, or food and make it so there is no unified neg generics. The aff still gets the core of the topic lit: they get medicine, innovation, and global inequality. Explosion of aff ground makes neg prep burden impossible, either killing neg ground or forcing the neg to read generics that barely link, always letting aff win. Force the 1AR to read a definition card with a clear list of what's included and excluded – otherwise, vote neg since they can't put a clear limit on the topic. Our interp solves – it establishes a clear bright-line for that gives the neg a chance to predict and prepare for every aff ahead of time. At best, the aff's extra-T still links to all our offense since they can get extra-T advantages to solve disads and defend whatever they want, magnifying limits.~2~ Precision – not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which a~ means they're not within the topic which is a voter for jurisdiction since you can only vote affirmative on the resolution and this debate never should have happened, b~ they're unpredictable and impossible to engage in so we always loseVoters:~1~ Fairness – constitutive to the judge to decide the better debater, only fairness is in your jurisdiction because it skews decision making~2~ Education – the only portable education from debate that we care about1~ DTDA~ the plan represents the entire affB~ DTA encourages strategic abuse.2~ Competing interps — norm-setting is key to resolving future debates3~ Jurisdiction — the judge can only vote on args that are about the resolution – prevents intervention.4~ T before theory – norm-setting in the cointext of the res has larger pre-fiat implicationsA~ applies to more rounds since everyone is debating the resB~ norms from T can be applied to several resolutions since they often share the same grammar. | 10/2/21 |
2 - T-ReduceTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Wood, Tyler T-Reduce (1:00)Interpretation: The aff must permanently reduce IPR on medicines.Reduce implies permanencyReynolds '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) Violation:Standards:1~ Ground — lets aff de-link from DAs by justifying specific instances a~ raises the bar for entry into debate, that independently kills debate b~ losing core neg ground incentivizes a race to the margins — we don't get depth of education.2~ Predictable limits – explodes limits by forcing neg to prep against every possible timeframe which is impossible – the AC has infinite prep, the NC has 4 minutes - unpredictable affs mean that NCs can't utilize reactive positions — killing all neg ground and destroying fairness..Voters:Fairness – Debaters wouldn't participate in the activity if it isn't fair – outweighs education - fairness controls the internal link - you can't learn if you don't participate.Paradigm issues:1~ DTDA~ the plan represents the entire affB~ DTA encourages strategic abuse.2~ Competing interps — norm-setting is key to resolving future debates3~ Jurisdiction — the judge can only vote on args that are about the resolution – prevents intervention.4~ T before theory – norm-setting in the cointext of the res has larger pre-fiat implicationsA~ applies to more rounds since everyone is debating the resB~ norms from T can be applied to several resolutions since they often share the same grammar. | 10/2/21 |
JF - Mining DATournament: LEXINGTON WINTER INVITATIONAL | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Eberhart, Henry Mining is now – multiple companies are competing in mineral exploitation to obtain rare earth metals.Gilbert 4-26 ~Alex Gilbert is a complex systems researcher and a PhD student in space resources at the Colorado School of Mines. Milken Institute, "Mining in Space Is Coming"; https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming~~ kelvin Private companies are key to space mining – investors, profitability, and market demand.Krishnan 20 ~C A Krishnan, 8-6-2020, "Space mining: Just around the corner?," Week, https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2020/08/06/Space-mining-Just-around-the-corner.html ~accessed 12-6-21~ lydia Commercial mining solves extinction from scarcity, climate, terror, war, and disease.Pelton 17—(Director Emeritus of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, PHD in IR from Georgetown). Pelton, Joseph N. 2017. The New Gold Rush: The Riches of Space Beckon! Springer. Accessed 8/30/19. Otherwise terrestrial mining destroys the environment.Williams 19 ~Matthew S. writer at Universe Today; Aug 1 2019, "Asteroid Mining: What Will It Involve and Is This the Future of Wealth?", Interessting Engineering, https://interestingengineering.com/asteroid-mining-what-will-it-involve-and-is-this-the-future-of-wealth~~ brett | 1/15/22 |
ND - Trad NCTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham ZG | Judge: Menon, Uma | 12/4/21 |
ROB Spec ShellTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington MS | Judge: Palmer, Jacob 2A. Interpretation: The aff must specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:1. Clarify how we determine what a legitimate advocacy is and how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether topicality constrains the aff advocacy or not.2. Every plank of the ROB must be warranted, just like the standard text for a normative ethical theory, and what area of debate must be warranted i.e. which assumptions we should accept and which we shouldn't.3. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, and whether or not the aff comes before theory.4. Describe how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement.B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Engagement – If I don't know how the role of the ballot functions, its impossible for me to engage the aff, since knowing what counts as offense for me is a prerequisite to being able to make meaningful arguments that clash with yours. Knowing what a legitimate advocacy is ensures that I read something that is relevant to your method, and knowing how to weigh gives us an explicit standard for what is relevant, preventing superficial clash where we each make vacuous preclusion claims. This is uniquely true of role of the ballots since there is no communal norm on what "preformative engagement" is in the same way there is for what counts as util offense. Few impacts:a) Education – when two ships pass in the night we don't learn anything, education is derived from analyzing and comparing each other's arguments, so this theory argument is specifically legitimate. Not being able to crystallize on one issue is the definition of bad education. CHOKSHI:Niraj Chokshi is a former staff editor at TheAtlantic.com, where he wrote about technology. He is currently freelancing How Do We Stop the Internet From Making Us Stupid? JUN 8 2010 http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/how-do-we-stop-the-internet-from-making-us-stupid/57796/ b) Resolvability – if there is no engagement determining which arguments come first is impossible so the judge can't resolve the round. This comes first- judge needs to be able to resolve who is winning under your role of the ballot, so even if that precludes theory in general, resolving the round is a gateway issue.c) Having clearly defined parameters and guidelines on the role of the ballot debate is a prerequisite to debate itself. SHIVELY:Shively, Michael ~Prof Politics at Texas AandM~. "Partisan Politics and Political Theory" (p.181-2) 2. Strategy Skew – You make formulating a strategy impossible since I don't know what links to your evaluative mechanism. My interp means we know what a legitimate neg advocacy is, otherwise you can make up reasons mine doesn't link to the role of the ballot in the next speech, and by specing a weighing mechanism I can know to make the most relevant arguments so you can't arbitrarily preclude them in the next speech. If I go for a policy action and then you say the AC is about speech acts then I lose any ability to engage in that new framing in the 2nr since I didn't know how it functioned in the 1NC. Links to substantive engagement because I don't know how to effectively engage in your position.Further, warranting every plank prevents the aff from arbitrarily excluding certain offense with unwarranted planks, taking away advocacies crucial to my strategy. Finally, knowing how the aff functions with regard to theory prevents a double bind where I'm screwed strategically since if I read theory you'll just claim the aff comes first and if I don't you can collapse to 1ar theory. Strategy skew is key to fairness since it's the way we access the ballot.Framing: You can't use your ROB to exclude my shell. My shell allows you to read your role of the ballot, it just functionally constrains how you can do that. Additionally, as long as I win comparative offense to my interp it precludes on a methodological level -my method is your ROTB with specification, your is just the ROTB, so if the former is better it's a reason to vote for me even if method debates in general preclude theory. Also, if they go for K first that proves the abuse of my shell since they should have specified in the AC.D. Voter:Vote on fairness because debate's a game that needs rules, and education because that's why schools fund it. Use competing interps because reasonability is arbitrary which causes intervention which is definition-ally unfair. Drop the debater deter future abuse – empirically confirmed with aprioris. RVIs are bad because (a) chills theory on decent theory debaters causing net more abusive practices and (b) they're illogical - "I'm fair vote for me" doesn't make any sense - logic frames their args since all args need to make sense to be evaluable. | 12/4/21 |
SO - Biotech DATournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri Biotech DA (2:05)The U.S. is leading the world in biotechnology now, but China is catching up and creating economic, security and regulatory threats.Moore '20 (Scott Moore, Director of the Penn Global China Program@UPenn, Young Professional and Water Resources Management Specialist at the World Bank Group, Environment, Science, Technology, Health Officer for China at the U.S. Dept of State, Giorgio Ruffolo Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs@Harvard; "China's Role In The Global Biotechnology Sector And Implications For U.S. Policy", April 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FP_20200427_china_biotechnology_moore.pdf)//HW-CC The plan gives away key research and national security info that would let China take over biotech.Rogin '21 (Josh Rogin, Washington Post Columnist on National Security, 4/8/21. "Opinion: The wrong way to fight vaccine nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-wrong-way-to-fight-vaccine-nationalism/2021/04/08/9a65e15e-98a8-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html)//HW-CC. Bracketed for grammar. China will use biotech to get the military advantage and hurt US primacy – that opens the door for personalized bioterror attacks.Kuo '17(Mercy Kuo, Executive VP@ Pamir Consulting, Former member of the National Committee on US China Relations, M.A. in Chinese History@UMich; August 2017, "The Great US-China Biotechnology and Artificial Intelligence Race" https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/the-great-us-china-biotechnology-and-artificial-intelligence-race/)//HW-CC US Primacy solves arms races, land grabs, rogue states, and great power war – reject old defense that ignores emerging instability and compounding risk.Brands '18 ~Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments." American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump." Page 129-133~ | 10/2/21 |
SO - Innovation DATournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AK | Judge: Smith, Aeryn Innovation DA (2:00)IP protections motivate innovators to take risks – that triggers tech prolif in medicine and related fields – guarantees long-term development due to continuous incentives.Bacchus '20 (James Bacchus; James Bacchus is a 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. He was a founding judge and was twice the chairman—the chief judge—of the highest court of world trade, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.; 12-16-2020; "An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines"; https://www.cato.org/free-trade-bulletin/unnecessary-proposal-wto-waiver-intellectual-property-rights-covid-19-vaccines~~#, Cato Institute, accessed 7-21-2021; JPark) Pharmaceutical innovation is key to protecting against future pandemics, bioterrorism, and antibiotic resistance.Marjanovic and Fejiao '20 Marjanovic, Sonja, and Carolina Feijao. Sonja Marjanovic, Ph.D., Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Carolina Feijao, Ph.D. in biochemistry, University of Cambridge; M.Sc. in quantitive biology, Imperial College London; B.Sc. in biology, University of Lisbon. "Pharmaceutical Innovation for Infectious Disease Management: From Troubleshooting to Sustainable Models of Engagement." (2020). ~Quality Control~ Bioterror is the largest medical threat—it outweighs natural pandemicsBakerlee '21 Chris Bakerlee is a Ph.D. candidate studying evolutionary genetics at Harvard University and a fellow in the Council on Strategic Risks's Fellowship for Ending Bioweapons Programs. "Mother Nature is not 'the ultimate bioterrorist' - STAT." STAT, 8 Jan. 2021, www.statnews.com/2021/01/08/mother-nature-is-not-the-ultimate-bioterrorist. ~Quality Control~ Bioterrorism leads to extinction – modern technologies can be used to isolate deadly pathogens and target vast populations.Kellman '08 (Barry, Professor of Law, Director, International Weapons Control Center, International Human Rights Law Institute @ DePaul U., Futurist, May 2008, "Bioviolence: A Growing Threat," http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/31535413/Bioviolence-A-Growing-Threat) | 10/2/21 |
SO - Trad NCTournament: Duke Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Apex Friendship EM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri | 10/2/21 |
SO - WTO Aid CPTournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Raghavan, Badri WTO Aid CP (1:10)Counterplan: The World Trade Organization ought to -1~ Increase covax support2~ Prioritize trade facilitation3~Commit to aid for LDC's4~ Invest in pandemic preparednessHumanitarian aid is the most effective method of pandemic response in the global south – ensures short-term vaccine equity and long-term infrastructure.Violeta Gonzalez 8-1-2021, "Opinion: 4 ways to promote vaccine equity through trade," Devex, https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-4-ways-to-promote-vaccine-equity-through-trade-100457 Multiple international bodies agree. Cross-national survey data demonstrates uniqueness, timeliness, and feasibility.UNESCAP 7/14/21 | 10/2/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/2/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
10/3/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
3/6/22 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
12/4/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
10/2/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
10/2/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
| |
10/2/21 | omarelsakhawy25@gmailcom |
|