Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: McNeil AG | Judge: Ahuja
Interpretation: The affirmative must specify which intellectual property rights they reduce and to what degree they reduce them.
Chopra 18, Samir. "The Idea of Intellectual Property Is Nonsensical and Pernicious: Aeon Essays." Aeon, Aeon Magazine, 12 Nov. 2018, aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-nonsensical-and-pernicious. Samir Choprais professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. He is the author of several books, including A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents (2011), co-authored with Laurence White.sid
In the United States, media and technology have been shaped by these laws
AND
legally resolvable technicality; the latter sounds like an unambiguously sinful act.
Passarello 13 – J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, 2013. (Nicholas, NOTE: THE ITEM VETO AND THE THREAT OF APPROPRIATIONS BUNDLING IN ALASKA, 30 Alaska L. Rev. 125, Lexis)BB
With respect to the item veto power, the question in the case was whether
AND
appropriations item, not the descriptive language accompanying it.
Standards
Fairness is a voter since it’s debate is a game so it’s a jurisdictional question and sequencing to evaluating any other argument in the debate.
Reductions Spec isn’t regressive – it’s a core discussion central to the literature, we’ve read a card proving predictability, and is a floor for topic debates.
Use DTD since a~ can’t drop an absence of something and it can’t rectify the skew since this skewed the entire 1nc b~ it’s a necessary floor for debate-ability since the damage is irreparable.
Use competing interps – Reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.
No 1AR RVI’s – 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.