Scripps Ranch Sridharan Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 - NBA | Finals | Golden State SC | Adam Silver |
|
|
| |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 2 | Immaculate Heart SS | Ahuja, Ronak |
|
|
| |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 5 | Byram Hills AK | Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 4 | Strake Jesuit JW | Sinha, Abhinav |
|
|
| |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | Quarters | Byram Hills EW | Panel |
|
|
| |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 3 | Charlotte Latin AP | Braithwaite, X |
|
|
| |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 1 | Ramsay DF | Kawolics, Richard |
|
|
| |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 6 | Colonial Forge SR | Morris, Brendon |
|
|
| |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 2 | Hoover SL | Klein, Scott |
|
|
| |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 6 | Strake Jesuit JW | Sun, Favian |
|
|
| |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 3 | Memorial DX | Hatfield, Wyatt |
|
|
| |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Lexington BF | Joe, Sesh |
|
|
| |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Strake Jesuit EP | Thomas-McGinnis, Conal |
|
|
| |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Summit JC | Broussard, Austin |
|
|
| |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | NSU SF | Stuckert, James |
|
|
| |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Charlotte Latin AP | Liyanage, Nethmin |
|
|
| |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Octas | American Heritage Broward SS | Panel |
|
|
| |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Triples | Peninsula BD | Panel |
|
|
| |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Plano Independent JN | McLoughlin, Sam |
|
|
| |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | American Heritage Broward JA | Hughes, Quinn |
|
|
| |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 5 | Lake Highland Prep AB | Saianurag Karavadi |
|
|
| |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Octas | Strake Jesuit MS | Panel |
|
|
| |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Oxford VM | Jones, Dylan |
|
|
| |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Porter, Joshua |
|
|
| |
| 7 - Tournament of Champions | 3 | Sequoia AS | Joshi, Animesh |
|
|
| |
| 7 - Tournament of Champions | 1 | Marlborough WR | Jasani, Aryan |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 0 - NBA | Finals | Opponent: Golden State SC | Judge: Adam Silver 1AC - Cavaliers LJ |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak 1AC - Genomic Medicines Ahuja votes for Scripps Ranch AS (W) |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC - Kant |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav 1AC - Pandemics - AFC |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | Quarters | Opponent: Byram Hills EW | Judge: Panel 1AC - Lay |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Braithwaite, X 1AC - Libertarianism |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Kawolics, Richard 1AC - Pandemics Kawolics votes for Scripps Ranch AS (W) |
| 2 - Duke Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Morris, Brendon 1AC - Stock |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Hoover SL | Judge: Klein, Scott 1AC - Vaccine Inequality |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sun, Favian 1AC - Pandemics |
| 3 - Yale University Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt 1AC - Pragmatism - Disclose Theory Interps |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Joe, Sesh 1AC - COVID |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal 1AC - Pandemics |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Broussard, Austin 1AC - Agnostic Tricks |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 2 | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Stuckert, James 1AC - Kant |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 3 | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Liyanage, Nethmin 1AC - Capitalism |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Octas | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Panel 1AC - Lacan |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Triples | Opponent: Peninsula BD | Judge: Panel 1AC - Policy |
| 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Opponent: Plano Independent JN | Judge: McLoughlin, Sam 1AC - Lunar Heritage |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JA | Judge: Hughes, Quinn 1AC - Kant |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1AC - Capitalism |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Octas | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Panel 1AC - Adorno |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Oxford VM | Judge: Jones, Dylan 1AC - Mining |
| 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 7 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Porter, Joshua 1AC - Prag - AFC |
| 7 - Tournament of Champions | 3 | Opponent: Sequoia AS | Judge: Joshi, Animesh 1AC - Mega-Constellations |
| 7 - Tournament of Champions | 1 | Opponent: Marlborough WR | Judge: Jasani, Aryan 1AC - Space Commons |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 -- ContactTournament: 0 - NBA | Round: Finals | Opponent: Golden State SC | Judge: Adam Silver FramingHey, I'm Agastya - the sovereign of Scripps Ranch High School LD Debate team and the world writ large. There are two implications:~1~ You must concede to me because of my status as the absolute authority.~2~ Any attempts to contact my being will be rejected because I have ascended above moral authority as the ideal robot-human – my subjectivity transcends comprehension. Kantian frameworks source ends off of extrinsically moral factors - but that collapses because I am the source of goodness.Contention 1My Royal Assistant's Email: sovereignagastya@gmail.comContention 21: InformationSO: September/OctoberND: November/DecemberJF: January/FebruaryContention 3Notes for disclosure - The libertarianism NC read in r4 of Loyola isn't displaying - ask me for cites if you'd like. Also, if you have any interpretations/preferences for disclosure, please message me before the round - let's have a substantive debate. | 4/18/22 |
1 -- Possible InterpsTournament: 0 - NBA | Round: Finals | Opponent: Golden State SC | Judge: Adam Silver DisclosureInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source in an accessible format on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them in conjunction with a highlighted version. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2021-22 NDCA LD Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 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. Paragraph TheoryConditionality is a voting issue. PICs are a voting issue. Condo PICS are a voting issue. Floating PIKs are a voting issue. Dispo is a voting issue. Alt actor fiat is a voting issue. Multiple shells with DTD implications are a voting issue. Multiple NIBs is a voting issue. Consult CPs are a voting issue. Counterplans competing only through net benefits are a voting issue. Delay CPs are a voting issue. TJFs are a voting issue. Agent CPs are a voting issue. Not speccing status is a voting issue. Spec shells are a voting issue. Vague alts are a voting issue. MiscInterpretation: The negative must concede to the affirmative’s framework. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty and extinction outweighs. Interpretation: Debaters may not read extinction first under any framework. Interpretation: The neg may not derive a route to the ballot premised on the flaws of the aff framework. To clarify, framework Ks are bad. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: Counterplans must not be conditional. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the 1NC must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend at more than one conditional advocacy. Interpretation: If the negative proscribes a proactive change to the status quo, they must defend a governmental action. Interpretation: Negative debaters may only defend the status quo as an advocacy if the aff is whole res. Interpretation: All negative advocacies must be unconditional. Interpretation: If the negative reads a dispositional counterplan, they must defend that they go for it if I straight turn it. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read an advocacy that defends the affirmative’s advocacy absent a particular part or parts. To clarify PICs bad. Interpretation: Negative counterplans must be functionally and textually competitive. 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. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do part of the affirmative advocacy if the affirmative defends the entirety of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not advocate the entirety of the affirmative with the exception of one word. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do all of the aff advocacy except for a word or phrase unconditionally. Interpretation: The negative must not read an advocacy that can result in the world of the affirmative. To clarify, floating PIKs bad. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read a counterplan that only competes through net benefits. To clarify, advantage counterplans are bad. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a counterplan, the agent of the counterplan must be the same agent as the AC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a CP then they must have a carded solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the CP. Interpretation: If the negative reads a plan inclusive counterplan, then the neg must have a solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the explicit counterplan text. Interpretation: If the negative justifies competing interpretations, they must specify whether it operates under a norms-creation or an in-round abuse model. Default to norms-creation since the violation proves that your practice is bad in the context of a norm. Interpretation: Debaters may not spread without receiving explicit verbal consent from their opponent. To clarify, debaters must ask for permission before spreading. Interpretation: All neg counterplans need to be a) disclosed if they have been read before and b) need to be currently implemented somewhere in the status quo. Interpretation: The negative must disclose text of PICs 30 minutes prior to the round on their own NSDA LD Wiki if the affirmative is whole res and disclosed. Interpretation: The negative must defend a unique ethical framework from the aff. To clarify you cannot straight ref. Interpretation: The negative debater must either only contest the aff framework or the aff offense functioning under their framework. Interpretation: the negative must have a counter-advocacy text in the NC. Interpretation: The negative debater must defend the converse of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not defend a counterplan that fiats an alternative actor that is distinct from the aff. Interpretation: Debaters must not read an alternative that only specifies that we must reject the aff in favor of a critical shift. Interpretation: Kritik alternatives must only be specific, solvent policy actions implemented by a single actor. The alt must have a solvency advocate that explains the implementation of the policy, and cannot fiat a rejection or mindset shift. Interpretation: The neg must only have topical K links. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolution through state or location action. They must defend either federal legislation, an executive order, or a reversal of current decisions through the Supreme Court. Interpretation: The negative debater may not read more than one theory shell in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a “pre-fiat kritik”, then the link cannot be derive from something in the resolution. Interp solves any abuse: They can still read their criticism but they have to impact it back to a substantive framework. That could be minimizing oppression, but it can’t have pre fiat implications. Interpretation: The negative may only link offense to the post-fiat advocacy of the aff. To clarify, no Reps K’s. Interpretation: The neg must gain offense only from at most one unconditional route to the ballot. To clarify, a route to the ballot is one independent layer of the debate that functions as a voting issue. Interpretation: The negative must defend a counter-advocacy with a solvency advocate from the topic literature and a text written down in the 1NC. Interpretation: Kritiks must have an alternative. Interpretation: All kritik alternatives must have an explicitly delineated text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads both theory and a kritik, they must explicitly say which layer outweighs in an explicit text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a K, they must not read multiple links into the K. Interpretation: The negative may only read theory shells that indict the aff for an advocacy shift after the shift has occurred. To clarify you may not read a shell indicting a potential advocacy shift. Interpretation: If debaters read theory and a K and don’t explicitly weigh between them in the speech they were read or in CX, they must grant me an RVI. Interpretation: Debaters may not read multiple theory and/or T shells with an implication of drop the debater and no RVI’s. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming/negating is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the negative reads a negating is harder arguments, they must specify the implication they have in a delineated text of the speech they read them. Interpretation: If the negative reads negating is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose identity specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the identity of the debater. Interpretation: The neg must specify the status of all advocacies in the form of a delineated text in 1NC during the 1NC immediately after reading the advocacy text. To clarify, you must say if advocacies are condo, uncondo, or dispo in the 1NC. Interpretation: Debaters must defend the resolution as a general principle. Interpretation: Debaters must read a value. Interpretation: All debaters theory shells must operate through the norms-creation model, otherwise known as NCM. Interpretation: All theoretical paradigm issues must be contextual to their corresponding interpretation. Note: I reserve the right to read shells contextual to the round in order to check for abuse if I feel as though the violation is particularly egregious. | 4/18/22 |
GEN -- CP -- Outside DebateTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 3 | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Liyanage, Nethmin CP – Do the affirmative outside of debate. The 1AC operates from the position of the intellectual— acting as the interpreter of the truth to debate community as a revolutionary mass. They are just another part of the productive process.Berardi 9 ~Berardi, Franco " Bifo " Berardi (born 2 November 1948 in Bologna, Italy) is an Italian Marxist theorist and activist in the autonomist tradition, whose work mainly focuses on the role of the media and information technology within post-industrial capitalism, Precarious Rhapsody, 2009, www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/PrecariousRhapsodyWeb.pdf~ AND subjectivity tied to the mass standardization of intellectual capacity in advanced industrial society. | 1/28/22 |
GEN -- K -- Be Prepared De-LeuzeTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Stuckert, James We are dynamic – overtime, affective encounters shape subjectivity. The 1ACs transcendental invocation of identity imposes sameness onto a chaotic world which fails and concedes to fascism.Jun – Jun, Nathan. "Deleuze, Values, and Normativity.", Agastya AND in unpredictable and often novel ways" (May 2005: 125). ¶ Thus, the role of the ballot is to reject the liberal subject. Our theory of the subject constrains normative judgements – moral theories must account for the nature of the self which takes action first.Vote negative to embrace actuality ecology – this disrupts their majoritarian conception of subjecthood by recognizing our micropolitical affective investments and becoming molecules in political pack assemblages.MacCormack – Patricia MacCormack, 2009 MacCormack is a professor of Continental Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, she researches continental philosophy, feminism, queer theory, posthumanism, body modification, among other subjects. She is a visiting Leverhulme Fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "Vitalistic Feminethics: Materiality, Mediation and the End of Necrophilosophy" in "Deleuze and Law – Forensic Futures" edited by Rosi Bradotti, Claire Colebrook, and Patrick Hanafin, Agastya AND (Braidotti, 2006, p. 206, cites Becker and Jahn). | 1/28/22 |
GEN -- K -- Count on MeTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sun, Favian The world is an extension of the self's conceptual frames – however, the Other's infinite nature interrupts our imposition of meaning. Totalization, or the attempt to reduce the Other to a one-dimensional object is the root cause of violence as it denies our obligation to preserve the Other's mystery. Thus, the roll of the ballot is to resist totalization – they can't weigh the case if we win their starting point is flawed.Hooft 6 ~Stan Van Hooft "Understanding Virtue Ethics" 2006 pg. 99-101~ Util totalizes the Other to mechanical calculations which destroys ethics, politics, and the value to life. Vote negative to recognize the Other as a complex subject that demands a continual quest of understanding.Joseph 17 ~https://dspace.wlu.edu/bitstream/handle/11021/33878/RG38_TaylorZ_Poverty_2017_A.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y " The Essential Poverty of the Face: A Case for Levinasian Responsibility and Justice in Poverty Studies" Zachary Taylor Joseph 2017 Washington and Lee University~ | 12/13/21 |
GEN -- K -- EdelmanTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak The subject emerges through loss, unable to express its desires through language which produces a constitutive lack – desires from lack project fantasies of complete identity on queer bodies. The 1ACs investment in imaginary futures proliferates reproductive futurism and sustains the fantasy of the Child, which exists in a structural antagonism with queerness.Edelman 98 – Lee, Jan. 1998, is the Fletcher Professor of English Literature at Tufts University. He is the author of Transmemberment of Song: Hart Crane's Anatomies of Rhetoric and Desire (Stanford University Press, 1987, Published by: Ohio State University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20107133 This culminates in queer overkill – their futuristic, political discourse imposes a form of brutal, excessive violence that murders the life-form of the queer beyond the confines of death.Stanley 11 – Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 8-10 Thus, the roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best methodologically resists overkill. They can't weigh the case – if we win their starting point is anti-queer, don't let them leverage the endpoint of their representations.Vote negative to embrace the death drive – only an unwavering affirmation of queer negativity can collapse the symbolic organizing of society that requires the exclusion of queer bodies – a permutation is impossible they've picked optimism we endorse pessimism.Baedan 12 – Summer 2012, authors' manuscript, Baedan — journal of queer nihilism — issue one, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan~~#toc8 | 11/20/21 |
GEN -- K -- Edelman v2Tournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JA | Judge: Hughes, Quinn The desire to fill the insatiable lack projects fantasies of complete identity on queer bodies. The 1ACs presumption of the complete, universal agent sustains the fantasy of the Child which exists in a structural antagonism with queerness.Edelman 98 – Lee, Jan. 1998, is the Fletcher Professor of English Literature at Tufts University. He is the author of Transmemberment of Song: Hart Crane’s Anatomies of Rhetoric and Desire (Stanford University Press, 1987, Published by: Ohio State University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20107133, recut Agastya AND are able to conceive of a future without the figure of the child. Their philosophy structurally excludes the queer body – focus on reason and universalizability structurally excludes homosexuality – this isn’t an ad hom.Soble 3 – Alan Soble, The Monist 86:1 (Jan. 2003), pp. 55-89. Kant and Sexual Perversion AND , for no animal turns in this way from its own species.75 Their rights discourse inevitably furthers dehumanization of queerness which normalizes and silences overkill.Stanley 11 (Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 7-8) SJCPJG AND as the ground, and rights as the technology, of safety.23 This culminates in overkill – excessive violence that murders the queer beyond the confines of death.Stanley 11 – Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 8-10, Agastya AND , what it must mean, to do violence to what is nothing. Vote negative to embrace the death drive – only an unwavering affirmation of queer negativity can collapse the symbolic organizing of society that requires the exclusion of queer bodies – a permutation is impossible they’ve picked optimism we endorse pessimism.Baedan 12 – Summer 2012, authors’ manuscript, Baedan — journal of queer nihilism — issue one, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan~~#toc8 AND models, to instead experiment with the undying negativity of the death drive. Educative spheres are the compulsory reproduction of the Child – their defense of good education sublimates queerness under the will to productivity. Thus, the role of the judge is to embody the bad educator.Edelman 17 – Lee, 2017, is the Fletcher Professor of English Literature at Tufts University. A collection of new and previously published essays, L’impossible homosexuel, appeared in French in 2014 and the French translation of No Future, titled Merde au futur, was published in 2016, both titles with Epel Éditions. differences (2017) 28 (1): 124-173. https://read-dukeupress-edu.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/differences/article/28/1/124-173/60767, recut Agastya AND teaching could serve as nothing more than the sign of a bad education. | 2/19/22 |
GEN -- K -- Edelman v3Tournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AB | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi | 2/20/22 |
GEN -- K -- Kant Read KantTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Their philosophy structurally excludes the queer body – focus on reason and universalizability structurally excludes homosexuality – this isn't an ad hom.Soble 3 – Alan Soble, The Monist 86:1 (Jan. 2003), pp. 55-89. Kant and Sexual Perversion Vote neg – they read morally repugnant arguments. Thus, the alternative is to drop the debater:1 – Accessibility – A~ It's a lexical prereq because you need people in debate for argumentation to exist. B~ All aff arguments presuppose that people feel safe in this space to respond to them. | 1/8/22 |
GEN -- K -- MollowTournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Octas | Opponent: Strake Jesuit MS | Judge: Panel | 2/21/22 |
GEN -- K -- PragTournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Porter, Joshua | 3/1/22 |
GEN -- NC -- TrutilTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Kawolics, Richard I agree with my opponent's value of morality.My criterion is utilitarianism.Only utilitarianism can legitimately justify policies to the public, since they inevitably entail trade-offs. Though perhaps appropriate for individuals, rule-based moral codes create irresolvable bureaucracy when applied to governments.Gary Woller – BYU Prof., "An Overview by Gary Woller", A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10 Prefer utilitarianism for two additional reasons.First, the government derives its legitimacy from a social contract, in which individuals give up freedom in exchange for protection from harm. Therefore, a government that doesn't look after its citizens' well-being would be illegitimate.Second, death is the greatest denial of freedom since it destroys all possibilities and life projects – this means that life is the greatest impact under utilitarianism and relevant under any other ethical framework.Bauman 95 – Zygmunt Bauman (University of Leeds Professor Emeritus of Sociology). "Life In Fragments: Essays In Postmodern Morality." p. 66-71. 1995 | 12/13/21 |
GEN -- Theory -- Ban General DreddTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt Interpretation: The affirmative must not defend the resolution a general principle.Violation: They do – that was on the contention.Standards:1 – Topic Education – General principle moots topic education because it allows debaters to recycle generic arguments which deny the truth of everything.2 – Reciprocal burdens – proving a deductive argument is false only requires you win defense against one premise and proving an inductive argument is false is more difficult because of status quo bias. Our model solves because it eschews the idea that either side unilaterally carries the burden of proof, and requires both debaters to give an account of why their world is more desirable not principle.3 – Ground: It gives them the ability to shift out of all CPs by saying they don't disprove the general principle of the AFF which is bad – Good policymaking requires making comparisons between similar courses of action – saying that CPs are bad doesn't answer this because we should have to opportunity to argue that in round. CPs teach us to find the best policy possible – debate should teach us to be better decisionmakers because it's the only transferable skill to the rest of our lives, also controls the I/L to ground because they get infinite advocacies but I only get one. | 2/13/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Check Me OutTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interp: Debaters must show-up to the room check-in on time.Violation: They were late, screenshots in doc. 1~ Tech issues – testing tech pre-round is key to functional debates like audio quality and sound settings. O/Ws A~ Sequencing – controls the internal link to other standards B~ Reversibility – you could get disqualified for being late.2~ Tournament rules – Bronx requires you to be on time for tech check – means you can't jurisdictionally vote for them bc its intrinsic to the tournament.
3~ Delay – Late tech-checks and preventable tech issues delay RFDs and future pairings 2 impacts – (A) Scope – delaying the tournament skews flight 2 neg debaters, big prep-squads (B) Late rounds cause sleep-deficits which is bad for your health and skews your ability to effectively clash and engage. | 1/12/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- CombinatoricsTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: The affirmative must not claim they get 1AR theory as the highest layer and RVIs on NC theory.Violation: The UV.Standard is reciprocity – | 1/8/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- DreidelTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Interpretation: All AC spikes or preemptive theoretical framing issues/ROB must be read at the top of the affirmative's caseViolation: They were at the bottomThe standard is strat skew – I can't formulate my NC strategy until after the spikes are read because you could have several framing issues like 1AR theory paradigm, AFC, Theory incoherent, no neg fiat, or PICs bad. That moots 6 minutes of time I could be using to formulate an NC that best meets the spikes and engages with the aff. Strat skew is key to reciprocal fairness since you get to form your 1AR strat during my NC. Key to education since it leads to more specific clash with the aff. Scrolling to the bottom of the doc doesn't solve: some people don't flow off the doc and it forces me to miss the top part of the case while reading the underview.Paradigms – Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Drop the debater – a~ indicts the aff so drop the arg is drop the debater b~ deter future abuse 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. c~ Getting faster solves. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 1/8/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Hand Me DownTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Morris, Brendon Interpretation—the affirmative debater must disclose the plan text to the negative debater at least 30 minutes before the round begins. Disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message.Violation—they didn't, screenshots below:
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, internal link to fairness since I can't win without prep 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. Outweighs education on reversibility – we can learn in future rounds, but we need theory for a fair round now. Education is a voter – it's why schools fund debate.Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate.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. | 12/13/21 |
GEN -- Theory -- HedgehogTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville Paradigm for 1AR shells and independent voters:1 – Reasonability – 1AR theory is crazy aff-biased because the 2AR gets to line-by-line every 2NR standard with new answers that never get responded to– reasonability checks 2AR sandbagging by preventing crazy abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.2 – DTA – They can blow up a blippy 20 second shell to 3 min of the 2AR while I have to split my time and can't preempt 2AR spin which necessitates judge intervention and means 1AR theory is irresolvable so you shouldn't stake the round on it.3 – No new 1AR theory paradigm issues – A~ the 1NC has already occurred with current paradigm issues in mind so new 1ar paradigms moot any theoretical offense | 1/8/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- John WickiTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Hoover SL | Judge: Klein, Scott Interpretation: All debaters must have a wiki on the HSLD 2021 page.Violation: They don't – screenshots below: Standards:1~ Safety – contact info's the only way to check trigger warnings before the round for what debaters are comfortable reading, anything else creates a hostile environment – for example, checking about scenes of violence authors may mention. Safety is a voting issue – we can't debate unless we feel safe to do so.2~ Disclosure – Contact info is necessary to contact the other debater before the round – that's good – creates more nuanced argumentation since we have time to research and rigorously test arguments – even if disclosure is bad – we should have the opportunity to debate that in round.Paradigms – Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Drop the debater to deter future abuse. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 12/13/21 |
GEN -- Theory -- Sergeant ReportTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 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 – from the 1AC to the end of the 2AR.Violation: screenshot in the doc – they didn't disclose beyond the 1NC for r3.
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 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 since anything else means people quit. 2~ Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs affs – helps compensate for kids who can't afford coaches to prep out affs. No AFF offense – they disclosed other RRs fully but not this one.Paradigms – Education – it's why schools fund debate. Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse and b~ set better norms for debate. 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. c~ Getting faster solves. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 1/12/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Tell Me Your SecretsTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Stuckert, James Interp – debaters must delineate theory interps in cite boxesViolation they don’t - screenshots
Prefer1~ Norming – a) predictability – knowing what shells you read allows me to know about what theory norms that you want to set instead of going into round without any idea of how to test your norm and ensures setting the best norms b) spillover – disclosing shells allow for your norms to proliferate by letting debaters see what norms are good and OW since it’s a sequencing question to other voters2~ substance crowdout – knowing what interps to meet by disclosing them allows me to meet them instead of forcing you to read a shell which decks topic ed and ow on time frame since we only have 2 months to talk about the topic | 1/28/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- The Diary of JaneTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interpretation – The affirmative may not claim that multiple framing arguments procedurally outweigh.Violation – They've independently taken the stance that extinction, and actor spec, and intuitions all come first.Standards –1. Strat – It's impossible to determine what angle to take while contesting the aff. Claiming multiple framing arguments are the highest layer means I need a strategy that links to all of them on the spot, but you get to make up the terms and choose the fwk that they all operate under.2. Infinite Abuse – Reading arguments as the highest layer justifies reading every argument as the highest layer, forcing us to answer every single argument in the aff.3. Shiftiness – If I read a separate fwk and claim it's the most germane to government specific action, you'll just claim that it doesn't matter because intuitions come first in the 1AR which is arbitrary. | 1/12/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Three TierTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 3 | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Liyanage, Nethmin TOur interpretation is that affirmatives must enact the resolution through a three-tier process.Reid-Brinkley 8 – PhD from UGA, professor of communications at the University of Pittsburgh (Shanara, "THE HARSH REALITIES OF "ACTING BLACK": HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE") AND in the community of those most greatly affected by the status of oppression. Vote Neg:1 – Distancing DA – normative knowledge-making practices are steeped in expert vernaculars that crowd-out minority participation – exploration-sans policy analysis sans the three-tiers leads to distancing that demobilizes politics.2 – Access – not only are privileged debaters forced to acknowledge the structural advantages of their social location and encouraged to mobilize as accomplices to minority debaters, but students confront how lived experience shapes knowledge – their model instills a view from nowhere that encourages passing privilege.3 – Presumption – absent an affective connection towards space exploration, minority debaters become parasitically invested in imaginary futures which never materialize – turns case.4 – Pornotroping – the 1AC utilizes suffering as a currency to trade in exchange for ballots which commodifies experience and fosters ivory tower detachment from material suffering – turns the aff because they recreate cruel optimism.5 – TVA – Defend radical poetry as a method of entrenched, performative resistance against the logic of space exploration or introduce a petition towards the same goal.Drop the debater – we indict their model of debate. Evaluate the T-shell through competing interpretations – you cannot be reasonably oppressive, and reasonability bright-lines are arbitrary which requires judge intervention. No RVIs – you should not win for proving you’re accessible – their model deters debaters from indicting oppressive practices and it forces debaters to defend anti-queer norms. | 1/28/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Tribute to Shrey RajuTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Triples | Opponent: Peninsula BD | Judge: Panel TheoryInterp: Debaters must disclose tournaments on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki under the actual name of the tournament on tabroom for every round at said tournament. | 2/8/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Vandal SavageTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Broussard, Austin | 2/13/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Wake WorkTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Braithwaite, X Our interpretation is that AFFIRMATIVES must demonstrate how they engage efforts to advocate the plan BEYOND hypothetical imagination – ONLY this model centers wake work beyond after-life of slavery – our form signals spiritual life AND prevents ascetic tourism.Shanara Reid-Brinkley 2020, "The Future is Black: Afropessimism, Fugitivity, and Radical Hope in Education", Edited by Carl Grant, Ashley Woodson, Michael Dumas, https://books.google.com/books?id=SMHyDwAAQBAJandpg=PR5andsource=gbs_selected_pagesandcad=2~~#v=onepageandqandf=false//WY Impacts:1 – Pornotroping – absent a relationship to the violence they present, the affirmative becomes complicit in their harms because they trade ballots for suffering without any connection to the material world.2 – Marginalized voices DA—requiring a discussion of USFG policy instead of individual action marginalizes participants whose views are excluded from the policymaking process – this causes psychological violence and inaccessibility.3 – Grounded Activism—plan focus requires that we invest our advocacy in bureaucratic institutions as opposed to individuals. This agency displacement produces bad citizens enslaved to states.4 – Presumption—the affirmative does nothing. Voting affirmative in this debate will not produce the advantages discussed since it does not share a connection with the external world—vote negative on presumption.TVA – Introduce a petition outside the debate community to fight back against the harms of IP rights and advocates for their elimination.Drop the debater – we indict their model of debate. Evaluate the T-shell through competing interpretations – you cannot be reasonably oppressive, and reasonability brightlines are arbitrary which requires judge intervention. No RVIs or impact turns – you should not win for proving you're accessible, and their model deters debaters from indicting oppressive practices. | 11/20/21 |
JANFEB -- CP -- Buff MinerTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Octas | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Panel We endorse the entirety of the 1AC with the exception of mining in space.Private companies are key to a growing space mining sector – 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 AND likely to retain monopoly and huge economic advantages for a very long time. Space mining is key to sustain global resources — otherwise, resource wars.MacWhorter 16 ~Kevin; J.D. Candidate, William and Mary Law School, "Sustainable Mining: Incentivizing Asteroid Mining in the Name of Environmentalism", William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol 40, Issue 2, Article 11, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1653andcontext=wmelpr~~ brett AND of mining need not be sacrificed for the sake of the environment.38 Terrestrial resource scarcity goes nuclear—-we outweigh on timeframe, just the prospect of shortages triggers escalation.Klare 13 ~Michael T., The Nation’s defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change, will be published this fall. 2013. "How Resource Scarcity and Climate Change Could Produce a Global Explosion," https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-resource-scarcity-and-climate-change-could-produce-global-explosion/~~ brett AND mobilize new investments, tensions over water may erupt into more open confrontations." | 2/8/22 |
JANFEB -- K -- FakerTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 6 | Opponent: Plano Independent JN | Judge: McLoughlin, Sam | 2/13/22 |
JANFEB -- K -- Faker v2Tournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Oxford VM | Judge: Jones, Dylan | 2/24/22 |
JANFEB -- NC -- TrutilTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Octas | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Panel NC1 – Extinction outweighs: (A) Reversibility – It forecloses the alternative because we can’t improve society if we are all dead (B) Structural violence – Death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessities (C) Objectivity – Body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical (D) Uncertainty – If we’re unsure about which interpretation of the world is true, we should preserve the world to keep debating about it.2 – Prioritize a focus on existential risk in the context of debates about outer space.Baum 16 ~Seth, @ Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, In "The Ethics of Space Exploration", ed. James S.J. Schwartz and Tony Milligan, Springer, 2016, pages 109-123. This version 29 July 2016. https://sethbaum.com/ac/2016'SpaceEthics.pdf~~ brett AND the urgent threats that it faces, some attention is very much worthwhile. Outweighs: (A) Most articles about private appropriation are written through util – means other frameworks can never engage with core questions of the lit and decks predictability – equal topic lit means fair ground. (B) Substance begs the question of a framework being good for debate – fairness is a gateway issue to deciding the winner and education is the reason schools fund debate.3 – Reject Calc Indicts/Util Triggers Permissibility/Util Fails arguments: (A) They’re all NIBs that skew the neg and move the debate away from the topic (B) Morally abhorrent – it would say we have no obligation to prevent genocide and that slavery was permissible. | 2/8/22 |
JANFEB -- NC -- We Are the LawTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Triples | Opponent: Peninsula BD | Judge: Panel FrameworkObjective morality is epistemically inaccessible: (A) Rule-Following Paradox – there is nothing inherent in a rule that mandates following a specific interpretation. They are always subject to interpretation by the observer, which means an objective moral rule would get interpreted differently by different agents. (B) History proves – no moral or epistemological theory has received a majority support among philosophers, despite thousands of years of debate – means that even if there is a universal theory – it’s not binding as proven by ever past act of immorality. (C) Epistemic Bias – private entities are skewed by power relationships, so enforcing a universal moral theory would inevitably fail to encompass the views of their employees.This requires a state that preserves people’s freedom to pursue their conception of truth.Mack 18 – Eric Mack, June 15, 2018, "Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/~~#FraDisPro AND chosen communities will be internally homogeneous with heterogeneity existing only across these communities.) Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarianism – the NC evaluates intent-states, not end consequences. Prefer – argumentation presupposes freedom to prove claims as valid – responses to the NC rely on an external framework to prove it false which concedes to its authority.Contention1 – Our model mandates a market-oriented approach to space – that negates.Broker 20 – Tyler, work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review and the University of Memphis Law Review.) "Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded," Above the Law, 1-14-20, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/01/space-law-can-only-be-libertarian-minded/ AND fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence. 2 – Private entities dedicate resources to appropriate space – prohibition inhibits their ability to use property to set ends in space and their freedom to explore unknown horizons. | 2/8/22 |
JANFEB -- NC -- We Are the Law v2Tournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 7 | Opponent: BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent SK | Judge: Porter, Joshua | 3/1/22 |
JANFEB -- T -- General GrievousTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Triples | Opponent: Peninsula BD | Judge: Panel TInterpretation – affirmatives must defend the resolution as a general principle. This requires that you defend that the plan is a good idea in the abstract and don’t defend implementation.Violation – they defend implementation.1 – Jurisdiction – it’s NSDA rules.NSDA 21 – 2021-22 Lincoln-Douglas Ballot, https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Ballot-Blank.pdf JB AND , proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. Outweighs – It’s on the LD ballot which means whenever a judge submits the ballot it’s what they contractually abide by – operating outside of the rules would forfeit the judge’s ability to submit a decision.2 – Precision:Resolved in LD is a statement of values.UPitt ND – University Of Pittsburgh Communications Services Webteam, copyright 2015-21, "Basic Definitions," Department of Communication , https://www.comm.pitt.edu/basic-definitions CHO AND "The Civil War," "genetic engineering," or "Great Books." Is means is Definition of is (Entry 1 of 4) present tense third-person singular of BE dialectal present tense first-person and third-person singular of BE dialectal present tense plural of BEWebster ND Definition of IS," Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is IS That requires logical coherence and implies no implementation.Your Dictionary ND – "Dialectical Meaning," No Publication, https://www.yourdictionary.com/dialectical Cho AND or pertaining to dialectic; logically reasoned through the exchange of opposing ideas. Be is a linking verb, not an action verb so implementation is incoherent.Grammar Monster ND – "Linking Verbs," Grammar Monster, https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/linking'verbs.htm CHO AND thirsty. (Here, the subject is described as thirsty.) Outweighs: (A) They can arbitrarily jettison words which decks ground and preparation because there is no stasis point (B) Jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the authority to vote aff if it wasn’t legitimate.3 – Fairness – it prevents abusive PICs out of certain parts of the plan that steal aff ground by isolating a hyper-specific DA to the plan – solves topic education to read it as a DA and promotes critical thinking because you need to win the DA actually outweighs the plan. | 2/8/22 |
JANFEB -- T -- Nerf MinerTournament: 6 - Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Oxford VM | Judge: Jones, Dylan | 2/24/22 |
JANFEB -- Theory -- Tell Me EverythingTournament: 5 - Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: 2 | Opponent: NSU SF | Judge: Stuckert, James Interpretation – Affirmatives must define private entities in a delineated card in the 1AC.UpCounsel ND – "Private Entity: Everything You Need to Know". UpCounsel (interactive online service that makes it faster and easier for businesses to find and hire legal help). No Date. Accessed 12/17/21. https://www.upcounsel.com/private-entity Xu AND related to a project it was working on with the city of Denver. Prefer:1 – Stable Advocacy – they can redefine in the 1AR to wriggle out of DAs which kills high-quality engagement. We lose access to Tech Race DAs, Asteroid DAs, case turns, and core Process CPs that have varying definitions – outweighs on reversibility since the 2NR can’t compensate after absurd 1AR shifts.CX can’t resolve this because (A) Not flowed so it’s non-verifiable (B) Skews 6 min of prep during the AC which is irreciprocal (C) They can lie and no way to check (D) Debaters are trained by coaches to be shifty.2 – Real World – Policy makers must specify the entity that they are recognizing. 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.3 – Resolvability – Constantly morphing advocacies makes debate impossible because the judge doesn’t know what you defend or if a DA even links – comes first because the judge has to pick a winner and loser.Independently, P-Spec isn’t regressive since (1) Determines the scope of the AFF which is core topic lit (2) Novices specify details about the plan which proves it’s grounded in LD norms. Also, infinite regress tailors optimal norms which outweighs on duration. | 1/28/22 |
SEPTOCT -- CP -- Ask Me AnotherTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Morris, Brendon Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should enter into a prior and binding consultation with the World Health Organization over whether to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines by eliminating them in the case of Global Public Health Emergencies. Member nations should support the proposal and adopt the results of consultation.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 Consultation boosts strong leadership, authority, and cohesion among member states – 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 | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- CP -- Indigenous PatentsTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Morris, Brendon CP text: The member nations of the world trade organization should:1 – Eliminate patent protections except for indigenous patents.2 – Establish an international legal instrument to protect indigenous intellectual property.That is in line with indigenous demands.WIPO – WIPO, xx-xx-xxxx, "Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property – Background Brief," https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html?fbclid=IwAR2iLd8fJ4lNl_fhhwQBHvCdoFEfB44H5GHIWBBb0xGPVBt1fRJT-uzUXDU Preserving native sovereignty is key to cultural diversity and preserves global survival.Barsh – Russel Lawrence Barsh 1993 "Native American Sovereignty" University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Winter, 1993, 25 U. MICH. J. L. REF. 671 (Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge Solves multiple scenarios for extinction.Stavenhagen 90 – Rodolfo. The ethnic question: Conflicts, development, and human rights. Vol. 90. United Nations University Press, 1990. (Professor at the United Nations University) | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- DA -- Here Comes the SunTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Kawolics, Richard Today, strong IP protections vastly increase pharmaceutical innovation – RandD is costly and companies need monetary incentives to innovate.Stevens and Ezell 20 – Philip Stevens and Stephen Ezell 2-3-2020 "Delinkage Debunked: Why Replacing Patents With Prizes for Drug Development Won't Work" https://itif.org/publications/2020/02/03/delinkage-debunked-why-replacing-patents-prizes-drug-development-wont-work (Philip founded Geneva Network in 2015. His main research interests are the intersection of intellectual property, trade, and health policy. Formerly he was an official at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, where he worked in its Global Challenges Division on a range of IP and health issues. Prior to his time with WIPO, Philip worked as director of policy for International Policy Network, a UK-based think tank, as well as holding research positions with the Adam Smith Institute and Reform, both in London. He has also worked as a political risk consultant and a management consultant. He is a regular columnist in a wide range of international newspapers and has published a number of academic studies. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and Durham University (UK).)Elmer ====The affirmative reduces IP protections which deters future investment in medical industries. Even if IPs do increase innovation, the perception of wavering commitment as a result of IP reductions scare off companies from innovating. Judge, ask yourself, why would a company invest millions in life-saving drugs if another company could simply steal their products?==== ====Development of new drugs and vaccines are key to innovation. COVID was just the beginning – our civilization will encounter more deadly pandemics in the future, and we need pharmaceutical innovation to save lives – there's a reason why Moderna was able to produce a groundbreaking COVID vaccine in a year. That reason is intellectual property protections.==== | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- DA -- Mama I Killed a ManTournament: 2 - Duke Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Ramsay DF | Judge: Kawolics, Richard Vulnerabilities exposed by COVID have invigorated availability and interest in bioterror, but technical challenges remain as barriers to acquisition.Koblentz and Kiesel 7/14 ~Gregory D. Koblentz (Deputy Director of the Biodefense Graduate Program and Assistant Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University) and Stevie Kiesel (Biodefense PhD Student, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University). "The COVID-19 Pandemic: Catalyst or Complication for Bioterrorism?". Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. Published online 14 Jul 2021. Accessed 7/22/21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1944023?journalCode=uter20 Xu~ IP protections are the only limit on proliferating dual-use biotech – losing patents puts financial pressure on companies to outsource RandD, which skyrockets bioterror acquisition.Finlay 10 ~Brian Finlay (President and Chief Executive Officer of the Stimson Center, M.A. from the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, a graduate diploma from the School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University and an honors B.A. from Western University in Canada). "The Bioterror Pipeline: Big Pharma, Patent Expirations, and New Challenges to Global Security". The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer 2010), pp. 51-64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45289504?seq=1~~#metadata_info_tab_contents Xu~ Bioterrorism causes massive violence and extinction – it's only a matter of time for an attack to spread, and intellectual property reductions push it over the brink.Walsh 19, Bryan. End Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World. Hachette Books, 2019. (Future Correspondent for Axios, Editor of the Science and Technology Publication OneZero, Former Senior and International Editor at Time Magazine, BA from Princeton University)Elmer | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- K -- Lackan v1Tournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Hatfield, Wyatt | 2/13/22 |
SEPTOCT -- K -- Lackan v2Tournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Broussard, Austin | 2/13/22 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- I Am The LawTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal ParadigmThe role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – anything else moots 7 minutes of the NC – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.They justify substantive skews since there will always be a more correct side of the issue but we compensate for flaws in the lit.Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.Negate because either the aff is true meaning its bad for us to clash w/ it because it turns us into Fake News people OR it's not meaning it's a lie that you can't vote on for ethicsThe 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.BurdenIn order to prove the resolution, the aff must prove that it is conceptually coherent to reduce medical IP protections. To clarify, they must prove that when the member nations of the WTO guarantee IP reductions, they cannot structurally falter from that obligation. Prefer:1 – Textuality – 'ought' implies 'can', which means that the state cannot falter from an absolute obligation.Britannica – Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Ought implies can. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/ought-implies-can. 2 – Real world – The aff would be an incoherent policy if it was impossible – that's why policy makers don't debate over absurd policies like pursuing immortality for Agastya.3 – Conceptual necessity – If states cannot conceptually be obligated to externally take an action, then it means the principle of reducing I~{ is incoherent – it presupposes some binding force. Means A~ you'd still negate even if the burden is false since it proves the resolution false B~ The burden comes first because it evaluates what it means to affirm or negate.3 – Hijacks your role of the ballot – A~ Strategies against oppression must be pragmatic to avoid ivory-towered theorizing B~ Considering if an IP reduction is favorable relies on its relation to the states that pass it.4 – Neg Burden Choice if they didn't specify their implicit burden in the AC – otherwise they can de-link out of all the NC offense, and abuse was self-inflicted because they could have justified a burden but didn't.ContentionNegate – the constitutive feature of the law is that the sovereign creates it, but the sovereign lives outside of the law and has complete control over the it. The sovereign is the only authority over the law, creating a state of exception; the state cannot undermine the sovereign in the state of exception. Thus, any principle that mandates the state to act is impossible.Agamben 04 – Agamben, Giorgio. "Homo Sacer – Sovereign Power and Bare Life". Translated by Daniel Heller-Rozan. Published 2004. Bracketed for gendered language | 1/12/22 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- I Have ContractionsTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Hoover SL | Judge: Klein, Scott Permissibility and Presumption negate:1 – "Ought" in the resolution mean that you need to prove an obligation – permissibility means that AFF isn't obligatoryUtil collapses into contractarianism, or the contracts from which individuals constrain actions to serve their self-interest.1 – Pleasure and pain are only motivational to the individual who senses them, which means only a system of mutual self-restraint can enter agents into binding agreements to respect each other's pleasure and pain.2 – Even if there is an external source of the good, pain and pleasure are only examples of things that agents might find motivational, it's not a wholistic account of everyone's self-interest which means only contracts can ensure agents follow ethical principles.3 – Consequences fail – A~ They only judge actions after they occur, which fails action guidance B~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence C~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify action because we intend the end point of an action – but consequences cannot determine what step of action is moral or not D~ If you're held responsible for things other than an intention ethics aren't binding because there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral as you are permitting just action E~ There's no objective arbiter to evaluate consequences F~ You can't aggregate consequences, happiness and sadness are immutable – ten headaches don't make a migraine.Now negate:1 – IP rights are included in multiple international contracts which the AFF violates.WIPO – WIPO, 11-9-1998, accessed on 8-25-2021, World Intellectual Property Organization, "Intellectual Property and Human Rights", https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_762.pdf 2 – Consent – the aff disregards the consent of medicine producers and allows it to be violated by removing patents – that negates because violating a party's consent is an act of violating a hypothetical contract since their side of the contract isn't accounted for. | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- NC -- We Are The LawTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav | 2/13/22 |
SEPTOCT -- Theory -- Somebody I Used to KnowTournament: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the whole resolution – then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy in the 1AC. (To clarify, you must have an author that states we should not do your aff, insofar as the aff is not a whole res phil aff)B. Violation:C. Standards:1. Fairness – This is a litmus test to determining whether your aff is fair –A~ Limits – there are infinite things you could defend outside the exact text of the resolution which pushes you to the limits of contestable arguments, even if your interp of the topic is better, the only way to verify if it's substantively fair is proof of counter-arguments. Nobody knows your aff better than you, so if you can't find an answer, I can't be expected to.2. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own viewpoints, as well as encouraging in depth-research about their own position. Having one also encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses.Paradigms – Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Drop the debater – a~ indicts the aff so drop the arg is drop the debater b~ deter future abuse. 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. c~ Eval theoretical paradigms after the 2N – key to prevent 2AR judge psychology and checks for infinite prep. 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. c~ Getting faster solves. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive, it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. | 2/13/22 |
SEPTOCT -- Theory -- State of MindTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sun, Favian Interpretation: The affirmative must defend all member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. The negative may not read plan inclusive counterplans.Violation: The affirmative only defends it for pandemics.Vote neg for limits — there are 164 members , which means their interp justifies reducing any IP protection in any WTO member, creating hundreds of potential AFFs to prep out. This kills negative ground because different countries can have different economic situations that affect the Innovation debate and we lose all disads to global action—we couldn't read dip cap or politics because they'd just spec out of it. | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- Theory -- Sunset SongTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Joe, Sesh Interpretation: The aff may not defend that member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for a medicine or subset of medicines. The negative may not read PICs.Violation: They spec COVID medicines.The standard is limits – their model allows affs to defend anything from Covid vaccines, HIV drugs, Insulin, antibiotics, CRISPR, cancer, cannabis— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications — that explodes neg prep and leads to random medicine of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible. TVA solves – you could've read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy. Potential abuse doesn't justify in round abuse, and having no prep leads to cheaty word PICs and Process CPs which are net worse. | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- Theory -- Tell Me EverythingTournament: 3 - Yale University Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sun, Favian Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate in a card 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 Violation: they don'tNegate:1~ Stable Advocacy – 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. Evaluate theory after the 1NC – 2ARs will always win on theory since they can blow up one argument for 3 minutes.CX can't resolve this and is bad because A~ Not flowed B~ Skews 6 min of 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 determines what the affirmative implements and who it affects. Fairness and education are voters – it's how judges evaluate rounds and why schools fund debate. 1NC theory first – a~ If I was abusive, it was because the 1AC was b~ We have more speeches to norm over whether it's a good idea. Neg abuse o/w aff abuse – we both have 13 minutes but you have persuasive advantages in the 2AR on top of infinite prep time. No RVIs – A – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe B - Discourages checking real abuse which outweighs on norm-setting C – Encourages theory baiting – outweighs because if the shell is frivolous, they can beat it quickly. | 12/13/21 |
SEPTOCT -- Theory -- Typical SituationTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Thomas-McGinnis, Conal Interpretation: The aff may not specify a situation that member nations of the World Trade Organization reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. The negative may not read PICs.Violation: They spec pandemics.Standard is limits – there are countless affs and specific situations – specific virus outbreak, war time, etc. unlimited topics incentivize obscure affs that negs won't have prep on – limits are key to reciprocal prep burden – potential abuse doesn't justify foregoing the topic and 1AR theory checks PICsTVA solves – read as an advantage to whole res – we still get discussion on it – non-uniques any reason why their aff is uniquely good. | 1/12/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
4/18/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
11/20/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
1/8/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/13/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
10/14/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
11/20/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/13/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
1/12/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/13/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
1/28/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
1/28/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/8/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/8/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/13/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/19/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/20/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/21/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
2/24/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
3/1/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
4/23/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
4/24/22 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
|