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 | 4 | Strake Jesuit JW | Sinha, Abhinav |
|
|
| |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 5 | Byram Hills AK | Tom, Neville |
|
|
| |
| 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 | 1 | Summit JC | Broussard, Austin |
|
|
| |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Lexington BF | Joe, Sesh |
|
|
|
| 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 | 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JW | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav 1AC - Pandemics - AFC |
| 1 - Loyola Invitational | 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville 1AC - Kant |
| 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 | 1 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Broussard, Austin 1AC - Agnostic Tricks |
| 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Joe, Sesh 1AC - COVID |
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. | 11/20/21 |
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 -- 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 -- 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: 1 - Loyola Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Byram Hills AK | Judge: Tom, Neville 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. | 1/8/22 |
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. | 1/8/22 |
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 -- 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. | 1/8/22 |
GEN -- Theory -- Vandal SavageTournament: 4 - New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Broussard, Austin | 12/13/21 |
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 |
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 -- 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 -- 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 | 1/8/22 |
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. | 12/13/21 |
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. | 1/8/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
11/20/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
11/20/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
1/8/22 | 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 |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
| |
12/13/21 | kartik@alumnistanfordedu |
|