Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake OF | Judge: Richard Li
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 with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction
AND
or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.
2~ Violation – the plan waives intellectual property protections temporarily, which is an indefinite suspension. That’s 1AC ~WTO Recommendation~ "a waiver from the implementation, application and enforcement".
3~ Vote neg for limits and neg ground – re-instatement under any infinite number of conditions doubles aff ground – every plan becomes either temporary or permanent – you cherry-pick the best criteria and I must prep every aff while they avoid core topic discussions like reduction-based DAs which decks generics like Pharma Innovation and Bio-Tech.
b~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.
c~ No 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.