1AC - Kant 1NC - Turns Comic Sans T - Medicines T - E-spec Truth Testing 1AR - All 2NR - Comic Sans E-Spec 2AR - Kant Comic Sans E-Spec
Yale Invitational 2021
4
Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Matthew Slencsak
1AC - Korsgaard Trix 1NC - ROB Spec All One Font Shell Comic Sans Shell Turns 1AR - ROB Spec All One Font Shell Comic Sans Shell Tricks 1NR - ROB Spec All One Font Shell Comic Sans Shell Turns 2AR - Trix
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
00-Accessibility
Tournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Quads | Opponent: You | Judge: Me If you are having trouble accessing anything on my wiki, or a particular doc is formatted in a way that is in accessible to you, just let me know and I'll either modify it, or attempt to send you a version that meets your specifications.
9/18/21
00-Contact Info
Tournament: 00 - Contact Information | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Hey, I'm Bryce (he/him), please contact me if you have any clarifications, concerns or questions BEFORE the round begins, so that we can sort it out.
I always try to be available before rounds begin, text is usually your best bet for contact.
Please let me know preferred gender pronouns, triggers, and accessibility concerns BEFORE the round begins so I can adapt.
9/17/21
00-Content Warnings
Tournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me I'll try to give content warnings for topics that I think are sensitive, but please let me know if there is anything on my wiki that would trigger you or make you uncomfortable and I'll attempt to modify it to fit your needs.
9/17/21
00-Disclosure
Tournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: Me I will attempt to disclose all rounds fully AFTER a resolution ends (available in Open Source), before then, I will only disclose cases as required in cites (probably gonna be in open source actually, my cites aren't working), usually 30 minutes before the round begins.
9/17/21
00-Navigation
Tournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Quarters | Opponent: You | Judge: Me 00 - General Contact Info/ Etc. 1 - Theory Generics 2 - K Generics 3 - Topic Generics 4 - Misc. SO - September/ October ND - November / December JF - January / February MA - March/ April
9/17/21
00-Side of the Race War
Tournament: The USFG Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Nah
9/17/21
1 - All Equal Font Shell
Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Matthew Slencsak 2 - All Equal Font Interp: The text of all cards in a debater’s speech docs must be the same font size. Violation – they shrunk the unhighlighted portion of the card. Prefer – 1 Evidence Ethics – Shrinking font decreases readability while emphasizing what you want, making miscutting easier to get away with. Even if no miscutting occurred it’s still dishonest to hide your evidence – you wouldn’t try to hide parts of quote you cite in a research paper. Evidence ethics is an independent voter: teaching debaters that being academically dishonest is ok encourages it in real life in which it’s heavily frowned upon. Academic honesty k2 education since you don’t learn anything by just making things up.
9/19/21
1 - Comic Sans Shell
Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Matthew Slencsak Interp: debaters must use comic sans as their font in their speech docs. Violation – the doc is in calibri 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 The irregular shapes AND University in Wales.
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 In addition, she AND critical thinking skills
9/19/21
1 - ROB Spec
Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Matthew Slencsak 1 – ROB SPEC A. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech. B. Violation: they don’t C. Standards:
Strat Skew – Absent a text in the 1AC, they can read multiple pieces of offense under different ROBs and then read a new one in the 1AR so they never substantively lose debates under the ROB, it just always becomes a 2NR debate about whether the ROB is good or not comparatively to the 1N’s which moots engagement. They can warrant things like condo logic, consequentialist policy-making offense for their aff, or kritikal impacts that deviate from their plan and then read an incredibly nuanced ROB in the 1AR that makes it so only the conceded or under-covered offense matters. Stable advocacies are key to fairness since otherwise you aren’t bound by anything you say, and is an independent voter cuz it justifies saying the N word then shifting out of your reps. The impact is infinite abuse – reading a new ROB in the 1AR makes it so all you have to do is dump on the 1N ROB and marginally extend your warrants in the 2AR and the neg can’t do anything about it since there is no 3NR to answer the 2AR weighing or extrapolations, you already have conceded offense, all you need is the ROB. 2. Reciprocity – a) restarting the ROB debate in the 1AR puts you at a 7-6 advantage on the framing debate since I have to propose one in the 1NC since 2N arguments are new – including it in the aff makes it 13-13 b) you have one more speech to contest my ROB and weigh, I can only possibly answer your ROB in the 2N but you can do comparative weighing in the 2AR, and c) I can only read a ROB in the 1N so you should read it in your first speech as well – that’s definitionally an equal burden. D. Voters: Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation and otherwise debaters quit. No RVIs – a) good theory debaters will bait out theory and always win b) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair, and c) chilling effect – people are disincentivized from reading theory out of fear of losing on an RVI. Use competing interps – a) reasonability collapses because weighing between brightlines concedes the authority of an offense-defense paradigm b) reasonability requires judge intervention, and c) creates a race to the bottom where people read increasingly abusive practices that minimally fit the brightline. Drop the debater to deter future abuse and rectify time spent reading the shell.
9/19/21
SO - DA - Counterfeit Drugs
Tournament: Yale Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Montville AM | Judge: Christian Brown Cites not working check open source.
9/18/21
SO - Kant
Tournament: Yale Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Matthew Slencsak Cites Not Working Check Open Source
9/19/21
SO - T - Must Spec Enforcement
Tournament: Yale Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Eshwar Mohan Interpretation - Affirmatives must specify and separately delineate an enforcement mechanism used to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines Violation: they don’t Standards 1 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. international perception das, econ da, research da’s that may apply to certain medicines but not all or only to specific countries. 2 Real World- Policy makers will always specify how the mandates of the plan should be endorsed. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, voters 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 drafting ban treaties and is central to any advocacy about the reduction of medical IPs since the only uniqueness of a reduction is how effective its enforcement is Fairness – Debate is a competitive activity and the better debater must win. Education – it’s the only portable skill we take out of round. Drop the debater – 1 a loss deters future abuse 2 dropping the arg severs from your original advocacy which creates a 7-6 timeskew when you read new offense. Competing interps – 1 Your brightline is arbitrary and based on what you did rather than the best one. 2 Collapses – offense defense debate about your brightline is competing interps. No RVI on T – 1 logic – you shouldn’t win for being cheating and being a moving target – outweighs since logic is a litmus test for arguments. 2 they encourage you to read an abusive aff and prep out T. 3 enables us to return to substance and get that education rather than debating T the whole time.
9/18/21
SO - T - Must Spec IP
Tournament: Yale Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Eshwar Mohan Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in the 1AC. 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 Intellectual property protection AND of protecting them.
Violation:
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 affects Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified. 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 practices
9/18/21
SO - Truth Testing
Tournament: Yale Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Eshwar Mohan The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false. Prefer: A Text: Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution’s truth or falsity. This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are verified. Any other role of the ballot enforces an external norm on debate, but only truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate i.e. proving statements true or false through argumentation. Constitutivism outweighs because you don’t have the jurisdiction not to truth test – if a chess player says you should break the rules for a more fun game, the proper response is to ignore them as a practice only makes sense based on its intrinsic rules. Jurisdiction is also an independent voter and a meta constraint on anything else since every argument you make concedes the authority of the judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary – otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means it also controls the internal link to fairness since that’s definitionally unfair. B Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is true that I am awake” which means they are also a question of truth claims because it’s inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren’t mutually exclusive with mine. If the aff is true the res ought to be implemented, but the res ought to only be implemented if its not already being implemented, so it ought to be that the res is not implemented. C Inclusion: Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for inclusive debates because people without every technical skill or comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns your ROB- truth testing solves because you can do what you’re good at and so can I. This is also better for education because me engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn’t help anyone. o/w since it is a real-world implication in round rather than a thought experiment that doesn’t do anything 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. 8 Trade means “a publication intended for persons in the entertainment business”(Merriam Webster) but a world entertainment business cannot reduce intellectual property making the resolution incoherent. 9 Intellectual is defined as “possessing or showing intellect or mental compacity” (Dictionary.com) but property cant possess intellect so the resolutions incoherent 10 Property means “a building” (Oxford Languages) so reducing intellectual buildings is incoherent
Prefer additionally 1 Decision Making Paradox- in order to decide to do the affirmative we need a decision-making procedure to enact it but to choose a decision-making procedure requires another decision making procedure leading to infinite regress. 2 The Place Paradox- if everything exists in a place in space time, that place must also have a place that it exists in and that larger place needs a larger location to infinity. Therefore, ought statements are impossible since statements assume acting on objects in the space-time continuum. 3 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. 4 Arrows Paradox- If we divide time into discrete 0-duration slices, no motion is happening in each of them, so taking them all as a whole, motion is impossible. 5 Good Samaritan Paradox - If the aff is true the res ought to be implemented, but the res ought to only be implemented if its not already being implemented, so it ought to be that the res is not implemented. 6 Meno’s Paradox - in order to discover something, it must not be known, but in order to know to discover something, it must already be known – this makes the quest for knowledge incomprehensible and thus impossible