1AC-stock 1NC-Warming CPOutsourcing DA AI Innovation DA Case turns 1AR-all 2NR-CPInnovation DA case turns 2AR-all
2021 NSD Camp Tournament
3
Opponent: Davita Wrone | Judge: Connor Self
1AC-Kant 1NC-DisclosureLog ConTTCase 1AR-RVI on disclosure all 2NR-all 2AR-case
2021 NSD Camp Tournament
6
Opponent: Shrey Raju | Judge: Ben Waldman
1AC-Nietzche 1NC-Util NC Innovation DA CIAM CP Theory hedge case 1AR-3 shells DA 2NR-multi-shell bad shells DA 2AR-multi-shell DA
Churchill
1
Opponent: Alexander Seshan | Judge: Holden Bukowsky
1AC-Set Col 1NC-Kant NC PLA DA Case 1AR-all 2NR-Kant Case 2AR-all
Churchill
4
Opponent: Midlothian AC | Judge: Breigh Plat
1AC-Racial Cap 1NC-Telos CP Global CON CON CP Extra-Tcase 1AR-condoall 2NR-CondoTTelos CP 2AR-Case
Florida Blue Key
2
Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Faizaan Dossani
1AC-India 1NC-Kant NC ICJ CP Must not spec government case 1AR-process CPs bad all 2NR-Process CP Kant 2AR-all
Florida Blue Key
3
Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Sreyaash Das
1AC-Stock 1NC-Stock Market DA Inflation DA Health Workers PIC Must not read multiple framing issues come first 1AR-condo bad PICs bad all 2NR-CondoPICSshell 2AR-all
Harvard
1
Opponent: Basis Peoria MB | Judge: Jonathan Hsu
1AC-lay 1NC-lay 1AR-all 2NR-all 2AR-all
Harvard
4
Opponent: Rock Hill SS | Judge: Brian Zhou
1AC-Case 1NC-Space Elevators PIC Mining DA PLA DA case 1AR-all 2NR-PLAcase 2AR-all
Harvard
6
Opponent: CR North GY | Judge: Jack Daou
1AC-Climate 1NC-Space elevators CP Mining DA Xi DA case 1AR-all 2NR-Xi DA case 2AR-all
Harvard
7
Opponent: Millburn ST | Judge: Sreyaash Das
1AC-Koorsgaard 1NC-Set Col case 1AR-all 2NR-all 2AR-all
Loyola Invitational
1
Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Sreyaash Das
1AC- Canabis Aff 1NC-Log Con NC Contracts NC Innovation DA must not spec medicine 1AR-all 2NR-permissibility must not spec medicine 2AR-all
Loyola Invitational
3
Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: Abhinav Sinha
1AC-US Covid Aff 1NC- China DA Must not spec country or medicine Politics DA Con Con CP case 1AR-condo bad process Cps bad all 2NR-Shells China DA case 2AR-all
Loyola Invitational
6
Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Duc Than
1AC-Colonial Capitalism 1NC-CSA Espec Kant v non-t case 1AR-all 2NR-CSA Kant v non-t 2AR-all
Mid America Cup
2
Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Isabella Nadel
1AC-Deleuze 1NC-New affs bad kant nc NOAD NC case 1AR-2 shells Kant turns all 2NR-2 shells NOAD Kant 2AR-AFC
Mid America Cup
4
Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Jack Quisenbury
1AC-Women's health 1NC-T-must not spec medicine CSA Util NC Scientists CP Case 1AR-all 2NR-Util CP case 2AR-all
Mid America Cup
6
Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Akshay Manglik
1AC-Pandemics 1NC-Kant NC T-Reduce Scientists PIC Infrastructure DA case 1AR-all 2NR-Kant Pic case 2AR-all
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament
1
Opponent: West Des Moines Valley CK | Judge: Derek Ying
1AC-Hegel 1NC-Util NC China DA Scientists CP case 1AR-all 2NR-Scientists CP Case 2AR-all
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament
3
Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Parth Misra
1AC-Women's health 1NC-Util NC Infrastructure DA Trademarks CP
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament
5
Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Nelson Okunlola
1AC-semiocap 1NC-New Affs Bad Must not spec medicine Util NC Scientists PIC 1AR-all 2NR-New Affs bad PIC 2AR-all
TFA State
2
Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina
1AC-Set Col 1NC-Must not Spec Util NC Ukraine PIC case 1AR-all 2NR-NC PIC case 2AR-all
TFA State
2
Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina
1AC-Set Col 1NC-Must not Spec Util NC Ukraine PIC case 1AR-all 2NR-NC PIC case 2AR-all
TFA State
4
Opponent: Clements AK | Judge: Ishan Rereddy
1AC-Stock 1NC-Kant NC Ukraine CP case 1AR-all 2NR-CP case 2AR-all
The Longhorn Classic
1
Opponent: Greenhill KD | Judge: Sreyaash Das
1AC-Germany 1NC-T-Must not spec Government Kant NC ICJ PIC case 1AR-condo bad consult bad all 2NR-shells PIC 2AR-Case PIC
The Longhorn Classic
3
Opponent: Barbers Hill SC | Judge: Dylan Jones
1AC-Topical Cap 1NC-Air traffic workers PIC Infrastructure DAUTIL NC case 1AR-all 2NR-PICcase 2AR-all
The Longhorn Classic
6
Opponent: Plano East NK | Judge: Jack Quissenbury
1AC-China 1NC-Kant NC ICJ CP Must Not Spec GovernmentCase 1AR-all 2NR-Kant NC case 2AR-Process Cps bad
UH Cougar Classic
3
Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Tyler Garrett
1AC- Cap 1NC-Util NC XI DA Must spec outer spaceCase 1AR-all 2NR-all 2AR-all
UH Cougar Classic
2
Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Alexander Yoakim
1AC-Prag 1NC-Set Col case 1AR-all 2NR-Kcase 2AR-all
UNLV
2
Opponent: Plano East RP | Judge: Sim Guerrero
1AC-Logistics 1NC-Kant v nont new affs bad case 1AR-all 2NR-Kant 2AR-all
UNLV
3
Opponent: Peninsula KD | Judge: River Cook
1AC-mining 1NC-T-appropriation Kant NC US CP Warming DA Case 1AR-all 2NR-Kantcase 2AR-all
UNLV
6
Opponent: Harvard-Westlake ML | Judge: Sam Larson
1AC-Inequality 1NC-Kant NC Space Elevators CP Must Spec outer space case 1AR-all 2NR-CPcase 2AR-all
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0-Contact Info
Tournament: Disclosure | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Hi! My name's Evan (he, him). If you need to reach me you can contact me via messenger at Evan Proctor. If that fails you can email me at evancproctor@gmail.com. If you need any docs or want me to change something on my wiki don't hesitate to contact me. Please let me know if anything on my wiki is triggering and I'll adjust it.
7/7/21
0-Disclosure Interps
Tournament: NA | Round: Finals | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Interpretation: At all TOC bid-distributing tournaments, debaters must disclose all previously read positions before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words.
Interpretation: At all TOC bid-distributing tournaments, debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2020-21 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.
Interpretation: At all TOC bid-distributing tournaments, debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-21 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.
Interpretation: The affirmative must disclose the advocacy/plan text if they break new when pairings are released or at coin flip. If the debate occurs during flight 2 disclosure should occur at least 30 minutes before the round.
Interpretation: The affirmative must disclose the framing text if they break new when pairings are released or at coin flip. If the debate occurs during flight 2 disclosure should occur at least 30 minutes before the round.
7/8/21
0-Navigation
Tournament: NA | Round: Octas | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA 0 - Contact Info/Navigation 1 - Theory Generics 2 - K Generics or FWs 3 - Paradoxes or Tricks SEPTOCT - September/October Topic NOVDEC - November/December Topic JANFEB - January/February Topic MARAPR - March/April Topic
7/7/21
1-Counter Solvency Advocate
Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Duc Than A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than Insert Topic 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:
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. Our interp narrows out trivially true advocacies since counter-solvency advocates ensure equal division of ground for both sides. b) Shiftiness-Having a counter-solvency advocate helps us conceptualize what their advocacy is and how it’s implemented. Intentionally ambiguous affirmatives we don’t know much about can’t spike out of DA’s and CP’s if they have an advocate that delineates these things. 2. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own view points, as well as encouraging in depth-research about their own position. Having one also encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses. Key to education since we definitionally learn more about positions when we contest our own.
9/6/21
1-Must not say multiple framing issues come first
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Sreyaash Das
3
Interpretation – The affirmative may not claim that multiple framing arguments procedurally outweigh.
Violation – They've independently taken the stance that extinction and actor spec 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.
D. Voter
Fairness is a voter—debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Education is a voter – it is the terminal impact of debate. Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation has shifted—also the shell indicts your whole aff—justifies severance which skews my strat. Use competing interps—leads to a race to the top since we figure out the best possible norm and avoids judge intervention since there’s a clear briteline. No RVIs—
a. Baiting—they’ll just bait theory and prep it out—justifies infinite abuse and results in a chilling effect
b. its not logical—you don’t reward them for meeting the burden of being fair, especially on T debate where definitions are objective while your interp is subjective. Logic is a meta constraint on all args because it definitionally determines whether an argument is valid.
10/30/21
1-New Affs Bad
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Isabella Nadel
1
Interpretation: Debaters must disclose affirmative frameworks, advocacy texts, and advantage areas thirty minutes before round if they haven’t read the affirmative before 30 min before round. I contacted you on messenger.
Violation:
Standards:
1~ Clash- Not disclosing incentivizes surprise tactics and poorly refined positions that rely on artificial and vague negative engagement to win debates. Their interpretation discourages third- and fourth-line testing by limiting the amount of time we have to prepare and forcing us to enter the debate with zero idea of what the affirmative is. Negatives are forced to rely on generics instead of smart contextual strategies destroying nuanced argumentation.
2~ Reciprocity – They get an infinite amount of time to frontline their aff to write the most efficient and effective answers to anything we could say against it while we get only four minutes in round. This gives them a tremendous advantage over us that makes it impossible to win substance.
3~ Shiftiness- Not knowing enough about the affirmative coming into round incentivizes 1ar shiftiness about what the aff is and what their framework/advocacy entails. That means even if we could read generics or find prep, they’d just find ways to recontextualize their obscure advocacy in the 1ar.
Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.
Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse 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
Reasonability on 1AR shells – 1AR theory is super 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 super abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.
DTA on 1AR shells - 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.
RVIs on 1AR theory – a) 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – ows on quantifiaiblity b) the 1ar can restart by spamming 7 1ar shells uplayering the entire NC- Rvis are key to check back
Reject 1ar theory on face –
~1~ 1ar theory time skews the rest of the round since they have the 1ar and 2ar, which is 7 minutes compared to my 2nr, which is 6 minutes. This gives them a whole minute advantage on the theory debate, that’s a lot in such a time crunched event and outweighs their strat args since I need time to execute strat and get ground.
~2~ I lose the flex of being able to indict practices of the aff without going new in the 2nr, which gives them the ability to effectively weigh on the theory debate. Also outweighs on spikes because you have the ability to weigh an entirely conceded theory spike while I have to weigh my theory interp against all possible interps of the aff.
~3~ 1ar theory is a no risk issue because the aff can go hard for no rvi in the 2ar, which skews my strat because either I either lose on substance or theory, screws the 2nr because I can’t respond to the initial spike, only the violation.
7/9/21
2-K-Set Col
Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Memorial DX | Judge: Alexander Yoakim
1
The land we stand on today once belonged to the Karankawa, Atakapa, and Sana who once occupied Houston. Eventually settlers arrived, and the tribes fought to protect their ancestral land. But by 1891, these tribes were considered to be extinct and were forced to move west to Kansas by the 19th century with no traces left.
The role of the ballot is to vote for who best centers indigenous scholarship and resistance— Any ethical commitment requires that the aff place themselves in the center of Native scholarship and demands.
Carlson 16 (Elizabeth Carlson, PhD, is an Aamitigoozhi, Wemistigosi, and Wasicu (settler Canadian and American), whose Swedish, Saami, German, Scots-Irish, and English ancestors have settled on lands of the Anishinaabe and Omaha Nations which were unethically obtained by the US government. Elizabeth lives on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Nehiyawak, Dakota, Nakota, and Red River Metis peoples currently occupied by the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba, (2016): Anti-colonial methodologies and practices for settler colonial studies, Settler Colonial Studies, DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2016.1241213) recut SJ DL Arlo Kempf says that ‘where anticolonialism is a tool used to invoke resistance for
AND
I believe our contributions to settler colonial studies are even more deeply problematic.
Settler colonialism is not a one-off occurrence – it requires the combination of external and internal colonialism fused with the identity-making of the settler through the erasure of indigenous populations that rewrites ontological identity and relationships.
Tuck and Yang 12 Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, 2012, "Decolonization is not a metaphor," Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Generally speaking, postcolonial theories and theories of coloniality attend to two forms of colonialism2
AND
whereas the Indigenous inhabitant and the chattel slave are unnatural, even supernatural.
Their claim to the ethical necessity and sufficiency of deliberation re-entrenches settler colonialism – it’s a form of inclusive recognition politics that obscures the settler colonial frameworks that undergird deliberation and opens space for settler reconciliation.
Norris 18 HOW BEAR LOST HIS TAIL: AN INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVE ON INCLUSIVE DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY AS APPLIED TO THE CANADIAN SOCIETAL CONTEXT by Matthew Norris B.A., The University of British Columbia (Political Science) August 2018 https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0371608 SM Colonialism, specifically settler colonialism, creates, entrenches and makes invisible the systems which
AND
Gwaii in 2009. 47 Coulthard, 106. 17 4.3 Literature
Western epistemology is deeply engrained in settler colonialism. Rationalist thought centres itself as the almighty while pushing others down and is what created the conditions that were used to justify genocide. The 1AC outsources agency to a "neutral point" where they look down at Indigenous people, classify them, and eliminate them.
Kerr 14 (Jeannie Kerr is an assistant professor of education at the University of Winnipeg, former professor at the University of British Columbia, teaches courses in Indigenous Education, Knowledge and Society, Knowledge and Curriculum, Decolonial thought. "Western epistemic dominance and colonial structures: Considerations for thought and practice in programs of teacher education," Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014. Pages 88-91) SJ DL Coloniality scholars provide a distinct interpretation and critique of modernist thought as related to colonial
AND
points out: "knowledge production is not an innocent or neutral project"
The alternative is one of decolonization – settlers need to enact an ethic of incommensurability to relinquish settler futurity.
Tuck and Yang 12 Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, 2012, "Decolonization is not a metaphor," Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, SJ DL An ethic of incommensurability, which guides moves that unsettle innocence, stands in contrast
AND
- these are the unwritten possibilities made possible by an ethic of incommensurability.
1/16/22
2-Kant vNon-t
Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Duc Than The starting point of morality is practical reason. 3 warrants: 1 Regress: A theory is only binding when you can answer the question “why should I do this?” and not continue to ask “why”. Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question “why should I be rational” already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Metaethical standards outweigh: they determine what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren’t relevant normative considerations. 2 Action theory: only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. And, reason must be universal – A a reason for one agent is a reason for another agent. I can’t say 2+2=4 is true for me but not for you – that’s incoherent. B any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others. Thus, counter-methodology: Vote negative to engage in a liberation strategy of universal reason. This entails a starting point where we abstract from individual perspectives to understand the universal, and use this starting point to apply it to empirical institutions and agents. Prefer: Performativity: freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments through talking freely. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, denying self-ownership in the round automatically implies the truth of the aff framework. Negate: 1 Only univeralizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression. Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). “Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?” JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. One of the other moral agents. 3 Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic use Pozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. “Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property.” Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut SJKS recut Cookie JX Corpus mysticum, opus... a free use.
9/6/21
2-NC-NOAD
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Isabella Nadel
3
There is a distinction between action and omission –
1. No act/omission distinction is infinitely regressive because it means that you are culpable for everything since you are technically aware of anything.
2. Trolley Problem – distinctions allow us to escape culpability in otherwise unavoidable situations like when someone pulls the lever to kill 1 instead of 2 – otherwise we’re always categorically wrong which proves ethics can’t tell us how to be right.
That negates – 1) since omitting is a legitimate action to avoid culpability, you can choose to omit from any ethical action which means the squo is ok 2) even if there is no distinction, it auto-negates since you aren’t doing anything right now to solve any problems which means you are equally as culpable for the aff problems.
Permissibility and presumption negate – a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation
b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false
c~ real world policies require proactive justification to be passed – outweighs since that determines portable impacts
d~ don’t believe your name plus no reason to be skeptical
Ethics must begin a posteriori and the meta-ethic is naturalism.
Indifference – Even if there are apriori moral truths, I can choose to ignore them. Cognition is binding – if I put my hand on a hot stove, I can’t turn off my natural aversion to it.
Thus the standard is act hedonistic util. Prefer –
1~ Pleasure is an intrinsic desire—solves regress.
Moen ’16 – (Ole Martin, PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Oslo, "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267). Modified for glang Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic
AND
that pain is intrinsically disvaluable. I shall argue that these objections fail.
2~ Actor spec—governments must use util because they don’t have intentions and are constantly dealing with tradeoffs—outweighs since different agents have different obligations—takes out calc indicts since they are empirically denied.
~a~ Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action.
~b~ No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation.
~c~ No intent-foresight distinction – the actions we take are inevitably informed by predictions from certain mental states, meaning consequences are a collective part of the will.
3~ No calc indicts – a~ no philosophy actually says that consequences don’t matter at all since otherwise it would indict every theory since they use causal events for ethics
b~ empirically denied- govs calculate all the time
4~ Extinction outweighs under any framework
MacAskill 14 ~William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014~ The human race might go extinct from a number of causes: asteroids, supervolcanoes
AND
with the benefit of keeping one’s options open while one gains new information.
5~ Death is bad and outweighs – agents can’t act if they fear for their bodily security which constrains every ethical theory
7/9/21
2-NC-Util v2
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Jack Quisenbury The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing. Prefer: 1 Actor specificity: util is the best for governments, which is the actor in the rez – multiple warrants: a No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation. b No intent-foresight distinction – the actions we take are inevitably informed by predictions from certain mental states, meaning consequences are a collective part of the will. c Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action.
2 Death is the worst form of evil since it destroys the subject itself. Paterson 3 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, “A Life Not Worth Living?”, Studies in Christian Ethics. Contrary to those possibility.82 3 Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework-threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework.
Permissibility and presumption negate-a) more often false than true since I can prove something false in infinite ways b) real world policies require positive justification before being adopted c) the aff has to prove the aff will logically happen in the squo d) resolved in the resolution indicates they proactively did something, to negate that means that they aren’t resolved e) winning the nc proves since otherwise we’d be blindly deceived when skeptical f) permissibility can’t affirm since then anything would be ok which would justify racism – we should be safe and do nothing.
The neg burden is to prove that the aff won’t logically happen in the status quo, and the aff burden is to prove that it will.
Top of Form Bottom of Form
Prefer:
1~ Text – outweighs on predictability:
A~ Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster
2~ Neg definition choice – the aff should have defined ought in the 1ac because it was in the rez so it’s predictable contestation, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition. And, isn’t mutually exclusive with comparative worlds a) logic is a side constraint on desirability b) reinterprets to the more logical world rather than more desireable world.
3~ Debatability – debates centered around moral oughts are futile and can’t guide action – we can never know the intention of another agent.
Hollingdale Human, All Too Human. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche Translated by R. J Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Recut SJCPJG Our experience of another person, for example, no matter how close he stand
AND
be able justly to assess the relation between ourself and anything else whatever.
Even our best guesses at intention are flawed; this makes any evaluation impossible.
likely, but we can never know for certain, if we’re Kantians.
4~ Neg framework choice – a) aff speaks first and last which means they control the direction of the round b) infinite pre-round prep means they’re prepared for any debate – prep controls quality of arguments c) they get one more speech to contextualize arguments in different ways.
Now negate:
1) Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to happen – proven by how it’s a proposal they fiat and they have harms
2) A just government can never be just if the passing of the resolution makes them just meaning there is no such thing as a just government to begin with and you negate on presumption because the res is impossible.
3) Strike means to hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand or a weapon or other implement.(oxford dictionaries) which is nonuniversalizable under Kant because it’s a contradiction in conception 4) There needs to be a space between things to distinguish them as multiple
AND
monism proves that one thing exists which can’t not exist since it’s everything.
We advocate for the 1AC sans their Affirmative’s telos of ~the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust~.
That solves the Aff – they have card zero that says the non-appropriation of outer space is necessary OR key to solve racial cap – ctl-F for private entities and appropriation shows results asserted in cards that have nothing to do with the res or in analytics – hold the line on 1AR solvency deficits. Affirming racial cap without a telos is necessary and sufficient to solve the Aff.
The Net Benefit is Incompleteness – strategies of completeness are genocidal.
- modified for problematic rhetoric Harney and Moten 11 Stephano Harney and Fred Moten March 2021 "Refusing Completion: A Conversation" https://www.e-flux.com/journal/116/379446/refusing-completion-a-conversation/ (Stefano Harney is the Professor of Strategic Management Education at Singapore Management University., Fred Moten is the professor of Performance Studies at New York University and has taught previously at University of California, Riverside, Duke University, Brown University, and the University of Iowa)Elmer FM: Maybe what we always also want to be doing is operating under the
AND
its completion. That’s our ongoing ante- and anti-metaphysical experiment.
States ought to call a global constitutional convention and establish a constitution reflecting intergenerational concern with exclusive authority to ban appropriation of outer space by private entities and bind participating bodies to its result by forefronting an ethic of incommensurability
That solves the aff – it addresses shared anxieties while building political consensus
Gardiner 14 1 ~Stephen M. Gardiner, Professor of Philosophy and Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of Human Dimensions of the Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, "A Call for a Global Constitutional Convention Focused on Future Generations," 2014, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 299-315, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679414000379, EA~ A Constitutional Convention In my view, the above line of reasoning leads naturally
AND
do better, would be a central issue for discussion by the convention.
It spills over to foster broader intergenerational representation, but independence is key
Gardiner 14 2 ~Stephen M. Gardiner, Professor of Philosophy and Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of Human Dimensions of the Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, "A Call for a Global Constitutional Convention Focused on Future Generations," 2014, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 299-315, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679414000379, EA~ One set of guidelines concerns how the global constitutional convention relates to other institutions. The first guideline concerns relative independence: (1) Autonomy: Any global constitutional convention should have considerable autonomy from other institutions, and especially from those dominated by factors that generate or facilitate the tyranny of the contemporary (and the perfect moral storm, more generally). Thus, for example, attempts should be made to insulate the global constitutional convention
AND
waste) but also the need to identify similar threats before they arise.
Proactive measures mitigate a laundry list of emerging catastrophic risks – extinction
Beckstead et al. 14 ~Nick Beckstead, Nick Bostrom, Niel Bowerman, Owen Cotton-Barratt, William MacAskill, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Toby Ord, * Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Director, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, * Global Priorities Project, Centre for Effective Altruism; Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Global Priorities Project, Centre for Effective Altruism; Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, * Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk; Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, * Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, "Policy Brief: Unprecedented Technological Risks," 2014, The Global Priorities Project, The Future of Humanity Institute, The Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, and The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Unprecedented-Technological-Risks.pdf, Accessed: 03/13/21, EA~ In the near future, major technological developments will give rise to new unprecedented risks
AND
in the near future, even if no such breakthroughs currently appear imminent.
Maintaining sustainable use of outer space is key to future generations
Islam 18 ~Mohammad Saiful Islam, Mohammad works for the Institute of Advanced Judicial Studies and the Beijing Institute of Technology. 4-27-2018, "The Sustainable Use of Outer Space: Complications and Legal Challenges to the Peaceful Uses and Benefit of Humankind," Beijing Law Review, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=85201 accessed 12/12/21~ Adam 4.2. Ensure the Rights of Future Generations in Outer Space Sustainable
AND
over-exploitation of resources and environmental havoc (Fountain, 2002) .
1/8/22
JANFEB-Lay NC
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Basis Peoria MB | Judge: Jonathan Hsu cites are broken-DM me and ill be happy to send you the cites/doc
2/19/22
JANFEB-Mining DA
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 4 | Opponent: Rock Hill SS | Judge: Brian Zhou Asteroid mining is starting now. New legal frameworks and massive investments bring it closer than you think-but we need to focus on maintaining progress Gilbert 21 Alex Gilbert, 4-26-2021, "Mining in Space Is Coming," Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming//SJJK Space exploration is back. after decades of disappointment, a combination of better technology, falling costs and a rush of competitive energy from the private sector has put space travel front and center. indeed, many analysts (even some with their feet on the ground) believe that commercial developments in the space industry may be on the cusp of starting the largest resource rush in history: mining on the Moon, Mars and asteroids. While this may sound fantastical, some baby steps toward the goal have already been taken. Last year, NASA awarded contracts to four companies to extract small amounts of lunar regolith by 2024, effectively beginning the era of commercial space mining. Whether this proves to be the dawn of a gigantic adjunct to mining on earth — and more immediately, a key to unlocking cost-effective space travel — will turn on the answers to a host of questions ranging from what resources can be efficiently. As every fan of science fiction knows, the resources of the solar system appear virtually unlimited compared to those on Earth. There are whole other planets, dozens of moons, thousands of massive asteroids and millions of small ones that doubtless contain humungous quantities of materials that are scarce and very valuable (back on Earth). Visionaries including Jeff Bezos imagine heavy industry moving to space and Earth becoming a residential area. However, as entrepreneurs look to harness the riches beyond the atmosphere, access to space resources remains tangled in the realities of economics and governance. Start with the fact that space belongs to no country, complicating traditional methods of resource allocation, property rights and trade. With limited demand for materials in space itself and the need for huge amounts of energy to return materials to Earth, creating a viable industry will turn on major advances in technology, finance and business models. That said, there’s no grass growing under potential pioneers’ feet. Potential economic, scientific and even security benefits underlie an emerging geopolitical competition to pursue space mining. The United States is rapidly emerging as a front-runner, in part due to its ambitious Artemis Program to lead a multinational consortium back to the Moon. But it is also a leader in creating a legal infrastructure for mineral exploitation. The United States has adopted the world’s first spaceresources law, recognizing the property rights of private companies and individuals to materials gathered in space. However, the United States is hardly alone. Luxembourg and the United Arab Emirates (you read those right) are racing to codify space-resources laws of their own, hoping to attract investment to their entrepot nations with business-friendly legal frameworks. China reportedly views space-resource development as a national priority, part of a strategy to challenge U.S. economic and security primacy in space. Meanwhile, Russia, Japan, India and the European Space Agency all harbor space-mining ambitions of their own. Governing these emerging interests is an outdated treaty framework from the Cold War. Sooner rather than later, we’ll need new agreements to facilitate private investment and ensure international cooperation.
Prohibitions on appropriation prevent asteroid mining despite growing space industries Myers 16 -- Ross Myers (J.D. candidate at the University of Oregon Law School.), The Doctrine of Appropriation and Asteroid Mining: Incentivizing the Private Exploration and Development of Outer Space, 2016, Oregon Review of International Law, https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/19850/Meyers.pdf?sequence=1 WJ Despite a decrease in national space program funding, corporate space missions are on the rise. In 2010, President Obama proposed that NASA exit the business of flying astronauts from Earth to low Earth orbit and move it to private companies.52 Several companies have stepped up to bat, and corporate space programs now include space tourism, supply missions, and in one case a one-way colonization mission to Mars.53 Corporate interest in space tourism and development demonstrates a strong private commercial interest in space as an industry, which could serve to finance the exploration of space in a period where national governments do not have an active financial interest in space. However, under current international treaties, the ownership of asteroids is prohibited, preventing corporations willing to invest in asteroid mining from having a secure claim. Asteroid Mining key to prevent terrestrial mining and solve warming. 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 In the next sixty years, scientists predict that certain elements crucial to modern industry such as platinum, zinc, copper, phosphorous, lead, gold, and indium could be exhausted on Earth. 12 Many of these have no synthetic alternative, unlike chemical elements such as oil or diamonds.13 Liquid-crystal display (LCD) televisions, cellphones, and laptops are among the various consumer technologies that use precious metals.14Further, green technologies including wind turbines, solar panels, and catalytic converters require these rare elements. 15 As demand rises for both types of technologies, and as reserves of rare metals fall, prices skyrocket.16 Demand for nonrenewable resources creates conflict, and consumerism in rich countries results in harsh labor treatment for poorer countries.17 In general, the mining industry is extremely destructive to Earth’s environment.18 In fact, depending on the method employed, mining can destroy entire ecosystems by polluting water sources and contributing to deforestation.19 It is by its nature an unsustainable practice, because it involves the extraction of a finite and non-renewable resource.20 Moreover, by extracting tiny amounts of metals from relatively large quantities of ore, the mining industry contributes the largest portion of solid wastes in the world.21 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes the industry as the source of more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector in the United States, costing billions of dollars to address the public health and environmental threats to communities. 22 Poor regulations and oxymoronic corporate definitions of sustainability, however, make it unclear as to just how much waste the industry actually produces.23 Platinum provides an excellent case study of the issue, because it is an extremely rare and expensive metal—an ore expected to exist in vast quantities in asteroids.24 Further, production of platinum has increased sharply in the past sixty years in order to keep up with growing demand for use in new technologies.25 In fact, despite their high costs, platinum group metals are so useful that one of four industrial goods on Earth require them in production. 26 Scholars do not expect demand to slow any time soon.27 Among other technologies, industries use platinum in products such as catalytic converters, jewelry production, various catalysts for chemical processing, and hydrogen fuel cells.28 While there is no consensus on how far the Earth’s reserves of platinum will take humanity, many scientists agree that platinum ore reserves will deplete in a relatively short amount of time.29 With the rate of mining at an all-time high,30 it is increasingly clear that historical patterns of mineral resources and development cannot simply be assumed to continue unaltered into the future. 31 The platinum mining industry, however, has a strong incentive to increase its rate of extraction as profits grow with the rate of demand. Without any alternative, this destructive practice will continue into the future.32 So-called platinum-group metal (PGM) ores are mined through underground or open cut techniques.33 Due to these practices, all but a very small fraction of the mined platinum ore is disposed of as solid waste.34 The environmental consequences of platinum production are thus quite significant, but like the mining industry in general, the amount of waste is typically under-reported.35 While this is due to high production levels at the moment, those levels will only increase given the estimated future demand of platinum.36 In spite of the negative consequences, mining continues unabated because it is economically important to many areas.37 The future environmental costs provide a major challenge in creating a sustainable system. Relegating at least some mining companies to near-Earth asteroids would reduce the negative effects of future mining levels on Earth. The economic benefits of mining need not be sacrificed for the sake of the environment.38
Extinction—contrary models are incorrect. Specktor 19 Brandon; 6/4/19; Writes about the science of everyday life for Live Science, and previously for Reader's Digest magazine, where he served as an editor for five years; "Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims," livescience, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-2050.html Justin The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate models — like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk — fail to account for the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far worse than any models can fathom. How the world ends What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions. "Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized. Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees. This mass movement of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely. The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global civilization as we know it."
2/19/22
JANFEB-NC-Kant
Tournament: Churchill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Alexander Seshan | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Check open source-cites broken-ask me and ill send
1/8/22
JANFEB-PLA DA
Tournament: Churchill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Alexander Seshan | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Check open source-cites broken-ask me and ill send
1/8/22
JANFEB-Space Elevators CP
Tournament: UNLV | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake ML | Judge: Sam Larson Text – we endorse the entirety of the 1ac except appropriation of outer space through Space Elevators being Unjust. Space Elevators constitute Appropriation – they impede orbits. Matignon 19 Louis de Gouyon Matignon 3-3-2019 "LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SPACE ELEVATOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM" https://www.spacelegalissues.com/space-law-legal-aspects-of-the-space-elevator-transportation-system/ PhD in space law (co-supervised by both Philippe Delebecque, from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France, and Christopher D. Johnson, from Georgetown University || regularly write articles on the website Space Legal Issues so as to popularise space law and public international lawElmer An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit. An orbit is the curved path through which objects in space move around a planet or a star. The 1967 Treaty’s regime and customary law enshrine the principle of non-appropriation and freedom of access to orbital positions. Space Law and International Telecommunication Laws combined to protect this use against any interference. The majority of space-launched objects are satellites that are launched in Earth’s orbit (a very small part of space objects – scientific objects for space exploration – are launched into outer space beyond terrestrial orbits). It is important to precise that an orbit does not exist: satellites describe orbits by obeying the general laws of universal attraction. Depending on the launching techniques and parameters, the orbital trajectory of a satellite may vary. Sun-synchronous satellites fly over a given location constantly at the same time in local civil time: they are used for remote sensing, meteorology or the study of the atmosphere. Geostationary satellites are placed in a very high orbit; they give an impression of immobility because they remain permanently at the same vertical point of a terrestrial point (they are mainly used for telecommunications and television broadcasting). A geocentric orbit or Earth orbit involves any object orbiting Planet Earth, such as the Moon or artificial satellites. Geocentric (having the Earth as its centre) orbits are organised as follow: 1) Low Earth orbit (LEO): geocentric orbits with altitudes (the height of an object above the average surface of the Earth’s oceans) from 100 to 2 000 kilometres. Satellites in LEO have a small momentary field of view, only able to observe and communicate with a fraction of the Earth at a time, meaning a network or constellation of satellites is required in order to provide continuous coverage. Satellites in lower regions of LEO also suffer from fast orbital decay (in orbital mechanics, decay is a gradual decrease of the distance between two orbiting bodies at their closest approach, the periapsis, over many orbital periods), requiring either periodic reboosting to maintain a stable orbit, or launching replacement satellites when old ones re-enter. 2) Medium Earth orbit (MEO), also known as an intermediate circular orbit: geocentric orbits ranging in altitude from 2 000 kilometres to just below geosynchronous orbit at 35 786 kilometres. The most common use for satellites in this region is for navigation, communication, and geodetic/space environment science. The most common altitude is approximately 20 000 kilometres which yields an orbital period of twelve hours. 3) Geosynchronous orbit (GSO) and geostationary orbit (GEO) are orbits around Earth at an altitude of 35 786 kilometres matching Earth’s sidereal rotation period. All geosynchronous and geostationary orbits have a semi-major axis of 42 164 kilometres. A geostationary orbit stays exactly above the equator, whereas a geosynchronous orbit may swing north and south to cover more of the Earth’s surface. Communications satellites and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits, so that the satellite antennae (located on Earth) that communicate with them do not have to rotate to track them, but can be pointed permanently at the position in the sky where the satellites are located. 4) High Earth orbit: geocentric orbits above the altitude of 35 786 kilometres. The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end, and the outward/upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up, under tension, and stationary over a single position on Earth. With the tether deployed, climbers could repeatedly climb the tether to space by mechanical means, releasing their cargo to orbit. Climbers could also descend the tether to return cargo to the surface from orbit. Private Companies are pursuing Space Elevators. Alfano 15 Andrea Alfano 8-18-2015 “All Of These Companies Are Working On A Space Elevator” https://www.techtimes.com/articles/77612/20150818/companies-working-space-elevator.htm (Writer at the Tech Times)Elmer Space elevators are solid proof that any mundane object sounds way cooler if you stick the word "space" in front of it. But there's much more than coolness at stake when building a space elevator – this technology has the potential to revolutionize space transportation, and the Canadian private space company Thoth Technology that was recently awarded a patent for its space elevator design isn't the only company in the game. One of the other major players is a U.S.-based company called LiftPort Group, founded by space entrepreneur Michael Laine in 2003. Its plan for a space elevator is vastly different from the one for which Thoth received a patent, however. Whereas Thoth's plans entail tethering a 12-mile-high inflatable space elevator to the Earth, LiftPort is shooting for the moon. Originally, LiftPort had planned to build an Earth elevator, too, but it abandoned the idea in 2007 in favor of building a lunar elevator. The basic design for a lunar elevator is an anchor in the moon that is attached to a cable that extends to a space station situated at a very special point. Known as a Lagrange Point, this is the gravitational tipping point between the Earth and the moon, where their gravitational pulls essentially cancel one another out. A robot could then travel up and down the tether, ferrying cargo between the moon and the station. Out farther in space, a counterweight would balance out the system. Both types of space elevator are intended to increase space access, but in very different ways. Thoth's Earth elevator aims to make launches easier by starting off 12 miles above the Earth's surface. LiftPort's space elevator aims to increase access to the moon in particular, because it is much easier to launch a rocket to the Lagrange Point and dock it at a space station than it is to get to the moon directly. There's a third major company based in Japan called Obayashi Corp. whose plans look like a hybrid of Thoth's and LiftPort's. Obayashi is not a space company, however – it's actually a construction company. Like Thoth, Obayashi plans to build an Earth elevator. But its Earth elevator would consist of a cable tethered to the blue planet, a robotic cargo-carrier, a space station, and a counterweight. It essentially looks like LiftPort's plans, but stuck to the Earth instead of to the moon. Yes Space Elevators – NASA confirms. Snowden 18 Scott Snowden 10-2-2018 "A colossal elevator to space could be going up sooner than you ever imagined" https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/colossal-elevator-space-could-be-going-sooner-you-ever-imagined-ncna915421 (Scott has written about science and technology for 20 years for publications around the world. He covers environmental technology for Forbes.)Elmer For more than half a century, rockets have been the only way to go to space. But in the not-too-distant future, we may have another option for sending up people and payloads: a colossal elevator extending from Earth’s surface up to an altitude of 22,000 miles, where geosynchronous satellites orbit. NASA says the basic concept of a space elevator is sound, and researchers around the world are optimistic that one can be built. The Obayashi Corp., a global construction firm based in Tokyo, has said it will build one by 2050, and China wants to build one as soon as 2045. Now an experiment to be conducted soon aboard the International Space Station will help determine the real-world feasibility of a space elevator. “The space elevator is the Holy Grail of space exploration,” says Michio Kaku, a professor of physics at City College of New York and a noted futurist. “Imagine pushing the ‘up’ button of an elevator and taking a ride into the heavens. It could open up space to the average person.” Regardless of completion, Elevators spur investment in Nanotechnology Liam O’Brien 16. University of Wollongong. 07/2016. “Nanotechnology in Space.” Young Scientists Journal; Canterbury, no. 19, p. 22. Nanotechnology is at the forefront of scientific development, continuing to astound and innovate. Likewise, the space industry is rapidly increasing in sophistication and competition, with companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic becoming increasingly prevalent in what could become a new commercial space race. The various space programs over the past 60 years have led to a multitude of beneficial impacts for everyday society. Nanotechnology, through research and development in space has the potential to do the same. Potential applications of nanotechnology in space are numerous, many of them have the potential to capture and inspire generations to come. One of these applications is the space elevator. By using carbon nanotubes, a super light yet strong material, this concept would be an actual physical structure from the surface of the Earth to an altitude of approximately 36 000 km. The tallest building in the world would fit into this elevator over 42 000 times. The counterweight, used to keep the elevator taught, is proposed to be an asteroid. This would need to be at a distance of 100 000 km, a quarter of the distance to the moon. The benefits of such a structure would be enormous. 95 of a space shuttle's weight at take-off is fuel, costing US$ 20 000 per kilogram to send something into space. However, with a space elevator the cost per kilogram can be reduced to as little as US$ 200. Exploration to other planets can begin at the tower, and travel to and from the moon could become as simple as a morning commute to work. Solar sails provide the means to travel large distances and incredible speeds. Much like sails on a boat use wind, the solar sail uses light as a source of propulsion. Ideally these sails would be kilometres in length and only a few micrometres in thickness. This provides us with the ability to travel at speeds previously unheard of. Using carbon nanotubes once again, a solar sail has the capability to travel at 39 756 km/s which is 13 of the speed of light! This sail could reach Pluto in an astonishing 1.7 days, and Alpha Centauri in just 32 years. Space travel to other planets, other stars, could be possible with solar sails. The Planetary Society is funding for a space sail of itself, and has successfully launched one into orbit. NASA has also sent a sail into orbit, allowing it to burn up in the atmosphere after 240 days. Investing time and resources into nanotechnology for space exploration has benefits for society today. Materials such as graphene are being used in modern manufacturing at an increasing rate as the applications become utilised. Carbon nanotubes will change the way we think about materials and their strength. These nanotubes have a tensile strength one hundred times that of steel, yet are only a sixth of the weight. Imagine light weight vehicles using less petrol and energy as well as being just as strong as regular vehicles. With potentials to revolutionize the way we think about space travel, nanotechnology has a bright future. As a new field of science, it has the capability to push the human race to the outer reaches of our galaxy and hopefully one day to other stars. It will inspire generations of explorers and dreamers to challenge themselves and advance the human race into the next era. As Richard Feynman said in his 1959 talk 'There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom' "A field in which little has been done, but in which an enormous amount can be done. There is still plenty more to achieve. Nanotech solves every existential threat Miller 17, Gina Miller, She has written articles and provided interviews on the subject of nanotechnology and created digital artwork, videos and animations to illustrate future applications. Her work has been featured in various media including the History Channel, Japanese television, international documentaries, Wired, PC Magazine, Fast Company, and various books such as “Nanofuture” by J. Storrs Hall, the inventor of the “utility fog” concept. Miller has collaborated with other nanotechnology pioneers such as Robert A. Freitas Jr., author of “Nanomedicine,” and is a frequent collaborator of the Foresight Institute co-founded by K. Eric Drexler the “founding father of nanotechnology”.. 2-26-2017, accessed on 1-28-2021, Nanotechnology Industries, "Nanotechnology, the real science of miracles, the end of disease, aging, poverty and pollution - Nanotechnology Industries", http://nanoindustries.com/nanotechnology_science_of_miracles/Adam The current status of disease and death is staggering. We do know that in the documented world 56 million people die every year. Dissecting the statistics of disease provided by the World Health Organization is overwhelming to weed through. There is a solution. Or there may be in the future. One day there could be a cure for all disease, and you may be able to live forever, in a healthy youthful state. One day it may be possible that scientists will be able to create nanorobots using nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is the ability to see and move atoms around. Everything is made of atoms, the chair you are sitting in, your food, your body, the air we breathe, everything. Atoms are so small they cannot be seen by the human eye. Atoms are on the nanoscale, that's a teeny, tiny size. There are 25,400,000 nanometers in an inch, a sheet of newspaper is 100,000 nanometers thick, human hair is about 80,000 nanometers in diameter. Atoms are the building blocks. Different atoms, arranged in different ways, make molecules that make the different things you see and experience. In the human body atoms come together to make many things, for example water, fats, hair, bones, and DNA. DNA and other molecules build cells; sometimes cells malfunction and cause disease. Where does nanotechnology fit in? That's a self realizing question, that's how, it fits in! Think of it this way, if you were King Kong, could you grab one grain of sand easily? Your hands would be too big. That's how medicine is currently treating disease. Nanotechnology is on the same size and scale as disease. A nanorobot can grab a cell and repair it. This will allow us to cure diseases that have never been cured before. Nanorobots could be released into the blood stream via pill or injection to find and repair damage and then break down and disintegrate. Or nanorobots could remain in the body at all times, perpetually monitoring, identifying and repairing problems immediately, without any external treatment. Nanorobots would cure the aliment so early on that you would never even know you were going to get sick. Chemotherapy releases toxic chemicals throughout the entire body rather than just the affected area, such as a tumor. This process destroys the cancer but also the immune system. Chemotherapy makes patients very sick, and there is risk of permanent damage or death from the treatment itself. There is also a risk of the cancer returning. A nanorobot could have radiation inside of it, locate the tumor, inject it and destroy it directly. Molecular nanorobots wouldn't leave one cancerous cell behind. That's one of the benefits of getting down to the molecular level. Doctors cannot see on the molecular level and could easily miss some cancer cells, which is often the case and the cancer returns. A nanotech gene therapy has successfully killed ovarian cancer in mice; if successful in human clinical trials it could save the lives of 15000 women a year. But it doesn't stop with cancer. Every disease is made out of the same atoms that everything else is. All medical conditions are a result of atoms being out of place; a nanorobot could put them back where they belong, thus immediately alleviating the problem without the side effects that current day medication and treatments cause. What else can be repaired in the human body? EVERYTHING. From cancer to the common cold. There is nothing that nanotechnology could not repair. The injuries or illnesses you have right now will have the capability to be repaired or cured by nanotechnology. Nanotechnology could eliminate diseases, disabilities, and illnesses such as diabetes, malaria, HIV, cardiovascular disease, damage from injuries and accidents, heal wounds, reduce child mortality, regenerate limbs and organs, eliminate inflammatory/infectious diseases, and so on and so forth. Nanotechnology offers hope to people suffering from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson's, brain injuries, tumors and neurological disorders. Nanoconstructs could deliver neuroprotective molecules directly to the brain to recover or protect nerve cells from damage or degeneration. Nanotechnology has been emerging in this field in the form of nanoengineered scaffolds that could one day result in a tool for rewiring the intricate neuronal network. Research by Dr. Samuel I. Stupp designed molecules using nanomaterials and injected them into mice who were paralyzed due to spinal cord injury. After 6 weeks the mice regained the ability to walk. Research like this could one day evolve into real cures for people. 65 billion dollars is wasted every year due to low bioavailability. Meaning that the drug or treatment used is not absorbed into or accessed by the body properly due to a multitude of reasons. For example drug interactions, different molecular arrangements and manufacturing processes by different brands. Drugs with more moisture may form lumps in the stomach which decreases absorption, and a highly compressed pill will slow absorption. Different level changes in the body at any given time may cause drug toxicity. Metabolism, age, activity, stress, previous surgery and syndromes are also factors. These are huge challenges that can be alleviated by using nanotechnology to target the specific areas. Nanorobots can take their cues from mother nature; she is the first nanotechnologist. She is an expert at creating molecular machines. Geneticists have been taking advantage of viruses for use in gene therapy for some time. They modify a virus by removing the viral gene so it doesn't cause disease. They replace it with healthy genes to transport to the faulty cell and cure diseases. This strategy of hacking viruses could be exploited by nanotech. Viruses are biological molecular machines that could be modified into becoming nanorobots or they could become transportation for a nanorobot. Another means is a nanorobot could attach itself to a traveling white blood cell and ride shotgun to assist in the tissue repair of injured tissue. Nanotechnology could even be involved in tissue engineering, creating scaffolds for artificial organs and implants. Tissue from your own body could be used to make new tissue, which assures that your body doesn't reject it. The surgeries of today are painful, costly, can leave scars and can even be life threatening. Repairing nanorobots would eliminate the need for surgeries, incisions, side effects and recovery time. According to the American Academy of Periodontology there are links to poor dental health and stroke, heart disease, respiratory disease, osteoporosis, some cancers and diabetes. Nanorobots as nanodentistry could repair damage without large needles or drills. Nanorobots could also constantly and invisibly maintain and clean your teeth to avoid any dental problems. Hygiene is important for good health; your skin and hair could be cleaned by nanorobots eliminating the need for showers. Spider bites and ticks carrying lyme disease would be detected by nanorobots, blocking penetration. Other skin problems such as eczema would be repaired by dermal nanorobots. Is aging a disease? Could aging be cured? Yes. Since nanorobots would be able to repair single cells on the molecular level they would be able to repair damages created by aging. It's all the same to a nanorobot. Nanotechnology could repair damaged cells. Dead cells are the primary reason for aging and death; nanorobots could replace senescent (old) cells with non-senescent cells, or reprogram cells so they do not senescensce, which would keep the body from aging. Not only would the inside of your body never get sick or age, but neither will the outside. Your skin will be young, elastic, dewy and wrinkle-free. Your hair will be thick, without gray, and intact. Your hearing, your eyesight and memory will be in perfect shape. You wouldn't get arthritis, turkey neck, or saggy parts. You could go out dancing when you are 93 and not worry about sore feet, low energy or suffering any consequences. Unless you party too hard, but that's on you, not the nano. So if you never get sick and never get old could you live forever? Yes. nanorobots could be programmed to rebuild older cells into younger copies on a regular basis thereby the human body could become immortal. You could live a disease-free youthful life, forever. Of course immortality isn't for everyone and everyone should have the right to decide what they want or don't want for their own body. Death will be a choice rather than a requirement. There are well funded countries that have access to researchers and high tech equipment that would love to figure out how to create the nanotechnology that will repair bodies and end disease. In the US despite having a lot of financial resources it's not always easy to get funding. If you are at a university, you need to write a grant, go through a lot of red tape, and there are a lot more near-term projects that seem to get prioritized when it comes to funding. For companies looking for investors, unfortunately not all investors can foresee the amazing future that nano will have because they are used to funding things they can see. For example a company that makes desks seeking an investor can show the investor the money they need for each piece of wood, bolt, and the quantity of desks that will be manufactured within a specific time frame. Nanotechnology is in development and isn't readily available like a piece of wood, the piece of wood has to be built. And the individual processes of each emerging development will have their own variables. Once the recipe has been figured out and formulated, the investment we have made will then be very inexpensive and easy to reproduce. Third world countries would have easy access to nanomedicine. Mother nature puts atoms together all the time and it doesn't cost her anything. The raw materials for making nanorobots would be essentially cost-free because they will be made mostly of carbon. Because nanotechnology would be created on the very small atomic level, traveling to provide treatment would not require large equipment. The size and portability would make treatment easily accessible across the world. The environment and living conditions also impact health. Since nanotechnology is on the atomic level and atoms are everywhere, it can be beneficial to the world all around us, as well as our bodies. Nanotechnology could enrich depleted soil in places like Africa, which is currently facing a food crisis. Vitamins, nutrients and minerals could be delivered to rebuild soil to a fertile state and thus have the ability to grow food. Hunger could one day be a solvable problem. Nanotechnology would make it possible to provide meat and animal products inexpensively without killing animals. E.coli and other pathogens could be detected in soil and eliminated so that food is not harmful. Currently nanomaterials are in development to release fertilizers for plants and nutrients for livestock, nano sensors for monitoring the health of crops and farm animals, and magnetic nanoparticles to remove soil contaminants. According to water.org 750 million people around the world lack access to safe water; approximately one in nine people. 840,000 people die each year from water-related disease. A portable non-chemical nano-filtration water purification device has been developed by Micheal Pritchard. It creates safe and sterile water out of dirty water and would make the cost of water per household an estimated 3 dollars a year. His company has provided clean water to countries who have gone through natural disasters, such as Haiti and the Philippines. In the future nanotechnology particles could destroy bacteria that often cause fatal disease. Pollution in general, global warming, nuclear waste, oil spills, smog, and acid rain, could be remedied and prevented by nanotechnological advances. Large quantities of nanorobots could come together to remove pollutant atoms from the atmosphere, earth and water. These groups of nanorobots could swim in contaminated waters and be released into the polluted atmosphere to destroy or remove contaminating molecules. Nanorobots could pull apart the bad molecules and reassemble the atoms into good molecules for other positive purposes. As a first indicator of the possibility, Brian Mercer created a new pollution control technology using nanofibres that greatly reduce industrial pollution by trapping and removing the pollutants. Currently nanotech is being used to reduce emissions from car fuels. Since nanotechnology builds atom by atom; the process is pollution free. Nanotechnology will not be manufactured in the way we use manufacturing plants today. There will be no chemical by product, no emission, hazardous waste and no pollution.
2/7/22
JANFEB-T-Appropriation
Tournament: UNLV | Round: 3 | Opponent: Peninsula KD | Judge: River Cook check open source-my cites are broken- dm and ill send
Interp: The affirmative may only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust and may not garner offense external to that.
question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not.
The appropriation of outer space is permanent control.
TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ The issues presented in relation to the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty should
AND
the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219
Violation: ~They defend that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust through the exclusion of the world computer and striking against the ballot~. At best they’re extra topical which is a voter for exploding limits and inflating aff solvency or effects topical which is worse, since any small aff can spill up to the resolution.
Vote neg for competitive equity and clash: changing the topic favors the aff because it destroys the only stasis point and makes prep impossible because any ground is self-serving, concessionary, and from distorted literature bases. Their model allows someone to specialize for 4 years giving them an edge over people who switch every 2 months. Filter this through debate’s nature of being a game where both teams want to win, which becomes meaningless without constraints.
Impacts:
1~ Procedural fairness outweighs—a) intrinsicness—debate is a game and equity is necessary to sustain the activity b) probability—debate can’t alter subjectivity, but it can rectify skews c) metaconstraint—all your arguments concede fairness since you assume they will be evaluated fairly
2~ TVA – defend an affirmative that defends the topic – their whole aff is about how private entities exploration of space is bad
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
1/8/22
JANFEB-Th-Must Spec Outer Space
Tournament: UH Cougar Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Ardsley KK | Judge: Tyler Garrett Interp: The affirmative must define “outer space” in a delimited text in the 1AC. “Outer Space” is flexible and has too many interps – normal means shows no consensus Leepuengtham 17 Tosaporn Leepuengtham (Research Judge, Intellectual Property and International Trade Division, Supreme Court of Thailand). "International space law and its implications for outer space activities." 01-27-2017, Accessed 12-9-2021. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781785369612/06_chapter1.xhtml Those states which... rather than later. Violation – you don’t. Prefer – 1 Stable Advocacy – they can redefine in the 1AR to wriggle out of DA’s which kills high-quality engagement and becomes two ships passing in the night –We lose access to Tech Race DA’s, Asteroid DA’s, basic case turns, and core process counter plans that have different definitions and 1NC pre-round prep. 2 Real World – Policy makers will always define 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. Fairness is a voter debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation Topicality is a voting issue that should be evaluated through competing interpretations a it tells the negative what they do and do not have to prepare for b reasonability is arbitrary and incentivizes judge intervention No RVIs—a it’s your burden to be topical. Anything else chills real abuse b forces theory debaters to bait theory and win on it every time
1/15/22
JANFEB-US CP
Tournament: UNLV | Round: 3 | Opponent: Peninsula KD | Judge: River Cook check open source-my cites are broken- dm and ill send
2/6/22
JANFEB-Warming DA
Tournament: UNLV | Round: 3 | Opponent: Peninsula KD | Judge: River Cook check open source-my cites are broken- dm and ill send
2/6/22
MARAPR-Must Not Spec Advocacy
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a type of advocacy in which a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy Violation: they spec x Standards: 1limits – there are hundreds of different advocacies such as climate advocacy, liberal advocacy, republican advocacy, any group can have an advocacy outwegihs on specificity since you chose a specific– explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. advocacy offense needs to be contextualized to each country, group, or iessue because they have different advocacy climates and free press norms and laws are different within each nation where different countries value advocacy differently. 2 tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all ur offense- Potential abuse doesn’t permit 1AC abuse – allows you to be infinitely abusive in the 1AC-– if the neg doesn’t have specific prep, they’ll resort to cheaty word PICs which are net worse Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified. Drop the debater – a deter future abuse 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
3/10/22
MARAPR-Must Not Spec Advocacy
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a type of advocacy in which a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy Violation: they spec x Standards: 1limits – there are hundreds of different advocacies such as climate advocacy, liberal advocacy, republican advocacy, any group can have an advocacy outwegihs on specificity since you chose a specific– explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. advocacy offense needs to be contextualized to each country, group, or iessue because they have different advocacy climates and free press norms and laws are different within each nation where different countries value advocacy differently. 2 tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res advocacy, solves all ur offense- Potential abuse doesn’t permit 1AC abuse – allows you to be infinitely abusive in the 1AC-– if the neg doesn’t have specific prep, they’ll resort to cheaty word PICs which are net worse Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified. Drop the debater – a deter future abuse 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
3/10/22
MARAPR-Ukraine CP
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina Plan text: In every democracy besides the Ukraine, a free press ought to prioritize indigenous objectivity over settler advocacy. The Ukraine should use advocacy. Ukraine war is optimistic, but maintaining outside support and low Russian morale’s key - Ukraine getting outside help from west - Kyiv’s history in soviet union and ties to Russia lowers morale - Low morale destroys new conscriptions which is key for Russia - Gives example of Ukrainian propaganda dissolving Russian army Knispel interviewing Goemans 3-9 Sandra Knispel, (Hein Goemans, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester, is an expert on international conflicts—on how they begin and end.) 3-9-2022, "How to end the war in Ukraine," NewsCenter, https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/how-to-end-the-ukraine-war-514522/ Jet QandA with Hein Goemans One or both sides must change their demands as a precursor to ending the war. What’s likely to happen in the current scenario? Putin made a big mistake by committing himself to total victory in Ukraine. Goemans: It depends on the performance on the battlefield, and a country’s expectations of outside help. Russia should have become more pessimistic in the last few days because Ukraine has shown its ability to inflict far greater costs on Russia than the Kremlin had anticipated. One would expect Russia therefore to lower its demands but we’ve seen very little evidence of that so far—only the demand of denazification seems to have been dropped. Overall, Putin still maintains that everything is going according to plan. If this continues, Ukrainian sovereignty may be at stake, which is dangerous and perhaps even stupid of Putin, who seems to be committing himself to total victory. If he can’t get it, he’ll be responsible and that makes a coup against him more likely. How has the situation changed for Ukraine and its demands for ending the war? Ukraine right now is not likely to accept anything less than full independence as a nation. Goemans: Ukraine must have gotten a lot more optimistic in recent days. Not just because its army has been doing reasonably well but because of the demonstrated incompetence of the Russian army. Yes, the Russians are still much stronger and much bigger, but there are problems with morale in the Russian army, and you see the remarkable level of Ukrainian support from the West. Ukrainians are still fighting for independence of their homeland and may maintain their claims to Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region in south-eastern Ukraine. I don’t know whether they’d willing to give up Crimea at this point. One avenue worth exploring in peace negotiations might be true plebiscites, overseen by international observers. Can Putin credibly commit not to go beyond the invasion of Ukraine? In his February 21 speech, he expressed his aim to reconstitute the Russian Empire. Goemans: No, he cannot. Nobody would believe him if he said he’d stop at Ukraine. People are pointing to the failed attempt to appease Hitler with the Munich Agreement in 1938. So that’s a non-starter, especially with Putin’s February 21st speech in which he said he wants to reconstitute greater Russia or the Russian Empire. Western nations can no longer say, ‘Oh, he doesn’t mean that. We can still do business there and we can have gas if we give him just a little bit, maybe two Ukrainian towns or so.’ He made that impossible. Yes, the analogy is overused, but it really is like Hitler in 1938. People heard the speech and the appeasement alarm bells went off. Global view of Russia and former Soviet satellite countries labeled. (University of Rochester illustration / Michael Osadciw) A deciding factor in this war is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. Can you explain the role of Russian conscripts in this context? The question is how many new conscripts will actually show up because it’ll determine the strength of the Russian army on the ground in Ukraine. Goemans: There are two things to keep in mind: First, the new Russian conscription class is going to be drafted in April. It’ll be very informative to see how many people do not show up. Secondly, are the Russians really going to bomb Kyiv, a so-called “hero city of the Soviet Union,” into rubble like they did with Chechnya’s capital Grosny? Are they willing to kill tens of thousands of people? Those two benchmarks will happen in the next few weeks. How precarious is the situation for Putin’s own survival? He may keep fighting, even if he knows he’s losing, because the alternative may mean signing his own death warrant. Goemans: Putin may count on the fact that Ukrainians will give in if Kyiv is bombed. But if they don’t, that should make him more pessimistic. One would think that he’d have to lower his demands, and that at that point, some kind of deal would be possible. But Putin must come home with some kind of victory because otherwise he’s literally dead. That means he may keep fighting, even if he knows he’s losing, because the alternative is signing his own death warrant. That’s what happened in the First World War. Germany kept fighting for years, even though the leadership knew that they were losing within the first weeks of the war. You’re not hyperbolic when you say Putin is signing his own death warrant with a defeat? History has plenty of examples here. Goemans: No, I’m not. In a regime like Russia—which is clearly not a democracy, but also not quite a dictatorship—if you win a war, you’re the great hero; if you lose a war, you have shown your incompetence and you’ll be removed, which I have explored in my own research. You’ll be held as what’s known as a “culpable leader”—culpable for the fact that the gains of the war do not outweigh the losses. Historically such leaders have been removed from office, and they either have gone into exile, or have been jailed or killed. A recent example is the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. What’s frightening, and there are already signs of this, is that Putin is moving towards a dictatorship because only full repression will prevent a coup against him. In that case, both the Russian and the Ukrainian people will suffer horribly. What do you think would happen with the war if Putin’s regime were to be overthrown? “Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and now want Crimea back.” Goemans: It’s possible that the entire Russian superstructure would be wiped out—not just Putin, but all his cronies, his security advisers, the oligarchs. That whole top layer could be removed. So the question is, if there’s a coup against Putin, what would the new Russian government insist on? They’re not necessarily all going to say, “Okay, sorry Ukraine, we made a mistake. Please excuse us.” And Ukrainians would not necessarily accept that anyway. Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and want Crimea back. Putin has said he wants to effect regime change in Ukraine—would a new government even have any credibility with Ukrainians? Ukrainians have become unified against Russia. Goemans: I don’t think so. There’s a new serious form of unity among the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian identity, and it’s in direct opposition to the Russians. It would be very dangerous for any Ukrainian government to be seen as colluding with Russia. Any such attempt would likely result in the formation of independent fighting units that would keep going to get the Russians out of Ukraine. What are the minimum terms the West can accept? The West cannot accept Putin’s winning in Ukraine, but they might we willing to accept concessions on the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, if Ukraine is willing to entertain that. Goemans: That’s an important question. The West—that is Western Democracies—cannot, in my opinion, accept a victorious Putin. The West is genuinely and correctly afraid of “salami tactics”—if he takes Ukraine, he will next take Georgia, and then he will go to the Baltics. Annexation wouldn’t end, so it has to stop now. Particularly because Putin so unmistakably declared his intentions in that speech on February 21st. Would the West accept Crimea as being Russian? I don’t know. Would the West accept Luhansk along the provincial administrative borders (which is not the same as the current line of control, which is currently roughly half of the of the provinces)? I doubt that. I think the West may demand a return to the status quo ante. I don’t know if they can get that. Maybe Ukraine would have to give up the entire administrative region of Luhansk and Donetsk. But the West will want to go back to the status quo. When do you think the war will end? Either in the next month and a half, or it’ll be years. Goemans: Either in the next month and a half, or it’ll be years. Months, if the new class of Russian conscripts in April fails to turn up. Otherwise I’m not optimistic. It’ll be ongoing bloodshed, pulverizing of Ukrainian cities, coupled with insurgencies, and Russia will never have full control of Ukraine. But going back to the video of the captured Russian soldier who was ashamed of taking part in the invasion of Ukraine: If he returns to Russia, he’ll most likely be killed. Yet, he’s speaking up and he’s hoping that he affects another guy, and then maybe two other guys, and it spreads like that. That’s how an army dissolves. On the other hand, that’s also how a Ukrainian army becomes more determined. Ukrainian propaganda is key to defeating Russia. Stuart A. Thompson 22 (reporter in the technology department covering misinformation and disinformation.) and Davey Alba (technology reporter covering disinformation. In 2019, she won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting and a Mirror Award) 3/3/2022, nytimes, Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine’s Information War, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html Just days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a pilot with a mysterious nickname was quickly becoming the conflict’s first wartime hero. Named the Ghost of Kyiv, the ace fighter had apparently single-handedly shot down several Russian fighter jets. The story was shared by the official Ukraine Twitter account on Sunday in a thrilling montage video set to thumping music, showing the fighter swooping through the Ukrainian skies as enemy planes exploded around him. The Security Service of Ukraine, the country’s main security agency, also relayed the tale on its official Telegram channel, which has over 700,000 subscribers. The story of a single pilot’s beating the superior Russian air force found wide appeal online, thanks to the official Ukraine accounts and many others. Videos of the so-called Ghost of Kyiv had more than 9.3 million views on Twitter, and the flier was mentioned in thousands of Facebook groups reaching up to 717 million followers. On YouTube, videos promoting the Ukrainian fighter collected 6.5 million views, while TikTok videos with the hashtag #ghostofkyiv reached 200 million views. There was just one problem: The Ghost of Kyiv may be a myth. While there are reports of some Russian planes that were destroyed in combat, there is no information linking them to a single Ukrainian pilot. One of the first videos that went viral, which was included in the montage shared by the official Ukraine Twitter account, was a computer rendering from a combat flight simulator originally uploaded by a YouTube user with just 3,000 subscribers. And a photo supposedly confirming the fighter’s existence, shared by a former president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was from a 2019 Twitter post by the Ukrainian defense ministry. When the fact-checking website Snopes published an article debunking the video, some social media users pushed back. “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.” In the information war over the invasion of Ukraine, some of the country’s official accounts have pushed stories with questionable veracity, spreading anecdotes, gripping on-the-ground accounts and even some unverified information that was later proved false, in a rapid jumble of fact and myth. The claims by Ukraine do not compare to the falsehoods being spread by Russia, which laid the groundwork for a “false flag” operation in the lead-up to the invasion, which the Biden administration sought to derail. As the invasion neared, Russia falsely claimed that it was responding to Ukrainian aggression and liberating citizens from fascists and neo-Nazis. And since the assault began, Russia made baseless claims that Ukrainians had indiscriminately bombed hospitals and killed civilians. Instead, Ukraine’s online propaganda is largely focused on its heroes and martyrs, characters who help dramatize tales of Ukrainian fortitude and Russian aggression. But the Ukrainian claims on social media have also raised thorny questions about how false and unproven content should be handled during war — when lives are at stake and a Western ally is fighting for its survival against a powerful invading force. “Ukraine is involved in pretty classic propaganda,” said Laura Edelson, a computer scientist studying misinformation at New York University. “They are telling stories that support their narrative. Sometimes false information is making its way in there, too, and more of it is getting through because of the overall environment.” Anecdotes detailing Ukrainian bravery or Russian brutality are crucial to the country’s war plan, according to experts, and they are part of established war doctrine that values winning not just individual skirmishes but also the hearts and minds of citizens and international observers. That is especially important during this conflict, as Ukrainians try to keep morale high among the fighters and marshal global support for their cause. “If Ukraine had no messages of the righteousness of its cause, the popularity of its cause, the valor of its heroes, the suffering of its populace, then it would lose,” said Peter W. Singer, a strategist and senior fellow at New America, a think tank in Washington. “Not just the information war, but it would lose the overall war.” In previous wars, combatants would try to sabotage enemy communication and limit the spread of wartime propaganda, even cutting physical communication lines like telegraph cables. But there are fewer such cables in the internet age, so in addition to downing communication towers and disrupting pockets of internet access, the modern strategy involves flooding the internet with viral messages that drown out opposing narratives. That digital battle moved at startling speed, experts noted, using an array of social media accounts, official websites and news conferences streamed online to spread Ukraine’s message. “You have to have the message that goes the most viral,” Mr. Singer said. That was the case with another report from Ukraine involving a remarkable confrontation on Snake Island, an outpost in the Black Sea. According to an audio recording released by Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, and later verified by Ukraine officials, 13 border guards were offered a frightening ultimatum by an advancing Russian military unit: Surrender or face an attack. The Ukrainians responded instead with an expletive, before apparently being killed. Audio of the exchange went viral on social media, and the clip posted on Feb. 24 by Pravda received more than 3.5 million views on YouTube. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine personally announced the deaths in a video, saying each guard would be awarded the title Hero of Ukraine. But just days later, Ukrainian officials confirmed in a Facebook post that the men were still alive, taken prisoner by Russian forces. Social media has become the main conduit for pushing the information, verified or not, giving tech companies a role in the information war, too. The fake Ghost of Kyiv video, for instance, was flagged as “out of context” by Twitter, but the montage posted to Ukraine’s official Twitter account received no such flag. The false photo posted by Mr. Poroshenko, the former Ukrainian president, also had no flag. While Twitter monitors its service for harmful content, including manipulated or mislabeled videos, it said tweets simply mentioning the Ghost of Kyiv did not violate its rules. “When we identify content and accounts that violate the Twitter Rules, we’ll take enforcement action,” the company said. In exercising discretion over how unverified or false content is moderated, social media companies have decided to “pick a side,” said Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory and a former head of security at Facebook. “I think this demonstrates the limits of ‘fact-checking’ in a fast-moving battle with real lives at stake,” Mr. Stamos said. He added that technology platforms never created rules against misinformation overall, instead targeting specific behaviors, actors and content. That leaves the truth behind some wartime narratives, like an apparent assassination plot against Mr. Zelensky or simply the number of troops killed in battle, fairly elusive, even as official accounts and news media share the information. Those narratives have continued as the war marches on, revealing the contours of an information war aimed not just at Western audiences but also at Russian citizens. At the United Nations on Monday, the Ukrainian ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, shared a series of text messages that he said had been retrieved from the phone of a dead Russian soldier. “Mama, I’m in Ukraine. There is a real war raging here. I’m afraid,” the Russian soldier apparently wrote, according to Mr. Kyslytsya’s account, which he read in Russian. The tale seemed to evoke a narrative advanced by officials and shared extensively on social media that Russian soldiers are poorly trained and too young, and don’t want to be fighting their Ukrainian neighbors. “We are bombing all of the cities together, even targeting civilians.” The story, whether true or not, appears tailor-made for Russian civilians — particularly parents fretting over the fate of their enlisted children, experts said. “This is an age-old tactic that the Ukrainians are trying to use, and that is to draw the attention of the mothers and the families in Russia away from the more grandiose aims for war onto, instead, the human costs of war,” said Ian Garner, a historian focusing on Russia who has followed Russian-language propaganda during the conflict. “We know that this is really effective.” Official Ukrainian accounts have also uploaded dozens of videos purportedly showing Russian prisoners of war, some with bloody bandages covering their arms or face. In the videos, the prisoners are heard denouncing the invasion. The videos may raise questions about whether Ukraine is violating the Geneva Conventions, which has rules about sharing images of war prisoners. Russia has also engaged in its own form of mythmaking, but experts say it has been far less effective. Rather than targeting international observers with emotional appeals, Russia has focused on swaying its own population to build support for the battle, Dr. Garner said. Since Russian state media is still calling the conflict a “special military operation” and not a war — in line with the description used by President Vladimir V. Putin — state broadcasters are left “trying to talk about a war that is apparently not happening,” Dr. Garner said. The Russian government “can’t play to its strongest narratives of individual sacrifice,” he added, instead relying on stories of Ukrainians bombing hospitals and civilians, providing no evidence. Ukraine’s efforts to amplify its own messages also leave little room for Russia to dominate the conversation, said Mr. Singer, the strategist from New America. “A key to information warfare in the age of social media is to recognize that the audience is both target of and participant in it,” he said. He added that social media users were “hopefully sharing out those messages, which makes them combatants of a sort as well.”
Ukraine’s info war is key to defeating Russia. Sinan Aral 22 (director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy and author of "The Hype Machine) 3/1/2022, Ukraine is winning the information war, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/01/information-war-zelensky-ukraine-putin-russia/ Today, the information war in Ukraine is more intense, more tightly contested and arguably more important than ever because motivating volunteer fighters at home and encouraging foreign support abroad are critical to success. And this time, it seems, Russia is losing. Reports abound on social media of more than 4,000 Russian casualties, images of crippled Russian helicopters and armored vehicles and cellphone videos of savage Russian missile attacks on civilian targets. This mix of official Ukrainian war statistics combined with videos (both verified and unverified), posted by Ukrainian citizens and sympathizers from the front lines, is painting a vivid picture of a homegrown resistance successfully slowing the advance of a much larger and ostensibly better organized military machine. Facebook posts showing Ukrainians kneeling in front of tanks to stop their progress and Twitter images of women and children sheltering in subways and basements set the emotional backdrop of senseless aggression against a peaceful nation. Viral videos and audio clips evoke a defiant optimism impossible to ignore: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appearing via his cellphone walking the streets of Kyiv, unharmed, in a “proof of life” demonstration emphasizing his willingness to stay and fight for his country, despite a U.S. offer to evacuate him, for example, or the recording of soldiers in an isolated Ukrainian outpost on Snake Island, in the Black Sea, cursing and telling off the Russian Black Sea Fleet. These stories are spreading rapidly on social media and subsequently echoing through official news channels in a media feedback loop that amplifies the information war and broadcasts it on television sets all over the world. Zelensky, in particular, is deftly outmaneuvering Putin in this information war. He rallied Ukrainian men to defend their homeland, used the encrypted messaging platform Telegram to speak directly to the Russian people to counter Putin’s narrative, urged the West to step up its assistance in defense of law, order and peace, and even pleaded with foreigners to cross the border into Ukraine to defend Western democracy. While misinformation exists on both sides, Zelensky gives the impression that he’s more committed to truth and transparency. In contrast, Russia has been secretive, obfuscating the true extent of its incursion into Ukraine, and out of touch, airing the rambling addresses of its leader. It’s as if Putin has forgotten that social media transitioned from text to real-time video around the time of the Crimean annexation. In today’s information war, Russian news claiming Zelensky had turned tail and fled was swiftly countered by a video selfie of the Ukrainian president in Kyiv, vowing to defend his homeland. The symbolic contrast between Zelensky striding through war-torn streets, confident even under fire, and Putin, seated, hunched over a large wooden desk in the safety of a secure office hundreds of miles away from the fighting, is stark. This time, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google are also proactively engaged in the information war. During the Crimean annexation, they were reactive and struggled to keep up with misinformation and false abuse reports. Today, in Ukraine, they have banned Russian state-owned media from advertising on their platforms and defiantly fact-checked Putin’s propaganda despite Russia’s protests and a full ban of Twitter and a partial ban of Facebook in Russia. Facebook has spun up a special operations center, staffed with native Russian and Ukrainian speakers, to monitor misinformation posted about the war, added warning labels to war-related images that its software detects are more than a year old, and restricted access to content from the state-affiliated Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik. YouTube is restricting access to Russian state-owned media outlets for users in Ukraine, removing Russian state-owned channels from recommendations, and limiting their content’s reach across the platform. Twitter has temporarily banned all ads in Ukraine and Russia, added labels to tweets with links to Russian state-affiliated media and downranked their content in algorithmic timelines. While numerous fake videos are circulating on TikTok about Ukraine, the Chinese-owned platform has no comprehensive policy on policing information about the conflict. Despite blocking state-owned Russian media in the European Union, this information flows freely in Ukraine and Russia on the platform, now dubbed “WarTok” by some observers, in part because it is organizing such videos into a convenient discover playlist by the same name. The information war is critical to what happens next in Ukraine for several reasons. It motivates the resistance by inspiring Ukrainian citizens to take up arms in defense of their country and motivating them with social proof that they are united and not fighting alone. It encourages foreign assistance, pressuring Europe and the United States to step up their efforts to end the conflict. It fans the flames of protest in Russia, mobilizing the antiwar movement in Moscow and elsewhere in defiance of Putin’s aggression. And it may even eventually demoralize Russian troops, who must be wondering what on earth they are doing in Ukraine if the motivation for the intervention has been a lie all along. When Russia struck a Ukrainian television tower on Tuesday, it seemed to confirm Moscow’s keen awareness of the need to counter Ukraine’s information war and to highlight the importance of information in modern conflicts. Information campaigns are difficult to quantify during the fog of war. But while it is hard to pinpoint the extent to which the information war is contributing to the overwhelming international unity against Putin’s aggression, one thing is clear: Social media, mainstream media and the narrative framing of the invasion of Ukraine undoubtedly will play an important role in how this conflict ends. Now, vigilance and fortitude are not only needed on the battlefield, where lives and territory will be won and lost, but also will be essential online, where the hearts and minds of the world will be won or lost.
Russian win would lead to escalation in multiple forums – goes global. LIANA FIX 22 (Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, in Washington, D.C). MICHAEL KIMMAGE (Professor of History at the Catholic University of America and a Visiting Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. )2/18/22, What If Russia Wins? A Kremlin-Controlled Ukraine Would Transform Europe, Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-18/what-if-russia-wins If Russia gains control of Ukraine or manages to destabilize it on a major scale, a new era for the United States and for Europe will begin. U.S. and European leaders would face the dual challenge of rethinking European security and of not being drawn into a larger war with Russia. All sides would have to consider the potential of nuclear-armed adversaries in direct confrontation. These two responsibilities—robustly defending European peace and prudently avoiding military escalation with Russia—will not necessarily be compatible. The United States and its allies could find themselves deeply unprepared for the task of having to create a new European security order as a result of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. MANY WAYS TO WIN For Russia, victory in Ukraine could take various forms. As in Syria, victory does not have to result in a sustainable settlement. It could involve the installation of a compliant government in Kyiv or the partition of the country. Alternatively, the defeat of the Ukrainian military and the negotiation of a Ukrainian surrender could effectively transform Ukraine into a failed state. Russia could also employ devastating cyberattacks and disinformation tools, backed by the threat of force, to cripple the country and induce regime change. With any of these outcomes, Ukraine will have been effectively detached from the West. If Russia achieves its political aims in Ukraine by military means, Europe will not be what it was before the war. Not only will U.S. primacy in Europe have been qualified; any sense that the European Union or NATO can ensure peace on the continent will be the artifact of a lost age. Instead, security in Europe will have to be reduced to defending the core members of the EU and NATO. Everyone outside the clubs will stand alone, with the exception of Finland and Sweden. This may not necessarily be a conscious decision to end enlargement or association policies; but it will be de facto policy. Under a perceived siege by Russia, the EU and NATO will no longer have the capacity for ambitious policies beyond their own borders. The United States and Europe will also be in a state of permanent economic war with Russia. The West will seek to enforce sweeping sanctions, which Russia is likely to parry with cyber-measures and energy blackmailing, given the economic asymmetries. China might well stand on Russia’s side in this economic tit for tat. Meanwhile, domestic politics in European countries will resemble a twenty-first-century great game, in which Russia will be studying Europe for any breakdown in the commitment to NATO and to the transatlantic relationship. Through methods fair and foul, Russia will take whatever opportunity comes its way to influence public opinion and elections in European countries. Russia will be an anarchic presence—sometimes real, sometimes imagined—in every instance of European political instability. Cold War analogies will not be helpful in a world with a Russianized Ukraine. The Cold War border in Europe had its flash points, but it was stabilized in a mutually acceptable fashion in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. By contrast, Russian suzerainty over Ukraine would open a vast zone of destabilization and insecurity from Estonia to Poland to Romania to Turkey. For as long as it lasts, Russia’s presence in Ukraine will be perceived by Ukraine’s neighbors as provocative and unacceptable and, for some, as a threat to their own security. Amid this shifting dynamic, order in Europe will have to be conceived of in primarily military terms—which, since Russia has a stronger hand in the military than in the economic realm, will be in the Kremlin’s interest—sidelining nonmilitary institutions such as the European Union. Russia has Europe’s largest conventional military, which it is more than ready to use. The EU’s defense policy—in contrast to NATO’s—is far from being able to provide security for its members. Thus will military reassurance, especially of the EU’s eastern members, be key. Responding to a revanchist Russia with sanctions and with the rhetorical proclamation of a rules-based international order will not be sufficient. IMPERILING EUROPE'S EAST In the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine, Germany‘s position in Europe will be severely challenged. Germany is a marginal military power that has based its postwar political identity on the rejection of war. The ring of friends it has surrounded itself with, especially in the east with Poland and the Baltic states, risks being destabilized by Russia. France and the United Kingdom will assume leading roles in European affairs by virtue of their comparatively strong militaries and long tradition of military interventions. The key factor in Europe, however, will remain the United States. NATO will depend on U.S. support as will the anxious and imperiled countries of Europe’s east, the frontline nations arrayed along a now very large, expanded, and uncertain line of contact with Russia, including Belarus and the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. Eastern member states, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, will likely have substantial numbers of NATO troops permanently stationed on their soil. A request from Finland and Sweden to gain an Article 5 commitment and to join NATO would be impossible to reject. In Ukraine, EU and NATO countries will never recognize a new Russian-backed regime created by Moscow. But they will face the same challenge they do with Belarus: wielding sanctions without punishing the population and supporting those in need without having access to them. Some NATO members will bolster a Ukrainian insurgency, to which Russia will respond by threatening NATO members. Ukraine’s predicament will be very great. Refugees will flee in multiple directions, quite possibly in the millions. And those parts of the Ukrainian military that are not directly defeated will continue fighting, echoing the partisan warfare that tore apart this whole region of Europe during and after World War II. The permanent state of escalation between Russia and Europe may stay cold from a military perspective. It is likely, though, to be economically hot. The sanctions put on Russia in 2014, which were connected to formal diplomacy (often referred to as the “Minsk” process, after the city in which the negotiations were held), were not draconian. They were reversible as well as conditional. Following a Russian invasion of Ukraine, new sanctions on banking and on technology transfer would be significant and permanent. They would come in the wake of failed diplomacy and would start at “the top of the ladder,” according to the U.S. administration. In response, Russia will retaliate, quite possibly in the cyber-domain as well as in the energy sector. Moscow will limit access to critical goods such as titanium, of which Russia has been the world’s second-largest exporter. This war of attrition will test both sides. Russia will be ruthless in trying to get one or several European states to back away from economic conflict by linking a relaxation in tension to these countries’ self-interest, thus undermining consensus in the EU and NATO. Europe’s strong suit is its economic leverage. Russia’s asset will be any source of domestic division or disruption in Europe or in Europe’s transatlantic partners. Here Russia will be proactive and opportunistic. If a pro-Russian movement or candidate shows up, that candidate can be encouraged directly or indirectly. If an economic or political sore point diminishes the foreign policy efficacy of the United States and its allies, it will be a weapon for Russian propaganda efforts and for Russian espionage. Much of this is already happening. But a war in Ukraine will up the ante. Russia will use more resources and be unchained in its choice of instruments. The massive refugee flows arriving in Europe will exacerbate the EU’s unresolved refugee policy and provide fertile ground for populists. The holy grail of these informational, political, and cyberbattles will be the 2024 presidential election in the United States. Europe’s future will depend on this election. The election of Donald Trump or of a Trumpian candidate might destroy the transatlantic relationship at Europe’s hour of maximum peril, putting into question NATO’s position and its security guarantees for Europe. TURNING NATO INWARD For the United States, a Russian victory would have profound effects on its grand strategy in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. First, Russian success in Ukraine would require Washington to pivot to Europe. No ambiguity about NATO’s Article 5 (of the kind experienced under Trump) will be permissible. Only a strong U.S. commitment to European security will prevent Russia from dividing European countries from one another. This will be difficult in light of competing priorities, especially those that confront the United States in a deteriorating relationship with China. But the interests at stake are fundamental. The United States has very large commercial equities in Europe. The European Union and the United States are each other’s largest trade and investment partners, with trade in goods and services totaling $1.1 trillion in 2019. A well-functioning, peaceful Europe augments American foreign policy—on climate change, on nonproliferation, on global public health, and on the management of tensions with China or Russia. If Europe is destabilized, then the United States will be much more alone in the world. NATO is the logical means by which the United States can provide security reassurance to Europe and deter Russia. A war in Ukraine would revive NATO not as a democracy-building enterprise or as a tool for out-of-area expeditions like the war in Afghanistan but as the unsurpassed defensive military alliance that it was designed to be. Although Europeans will be demanding a greater military commitment to Europe from the United States, a broader Russian invasion of Ukraine should drive every NATO member to increase its defense spending. For Europeans, this would be the final call to improve Europe’s defensive capabilities—in tandem with the United States—in order to help the United States manage the Russian-Chinese dilemma. For a Moscow now in permanent confrontation with the West, Beijing could serve as an economic backstop and a partner in opposing U.S. hegemony. In the worst case for U.S. grand strategy, China might be emboldened by Russia’s assertiveness and threaten confrontation over Taiwan. But there is no guarantee that an escalation in Ukraine will benefit the Sino-Russian relationship. China’s ambition to become the central node of the Eurasian economy will be damaged by war in Europe, because of the brutal uncertainties war brings. Chinese irritation with a Russia on the march will not enable a rapprochement between Washington and Beijing, but it may initiate new conversations. Nuclear detonations cause nuclear winter and extinction, and the rainout effect is wrong – self-lofting means soot goes above the clouds Starr 15 Steven Starr, 10-14-2015, "Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction," Federation Of American Scientists, Steven Starr is the director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology., https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/, SJBE While it is impossible to precisely predict all the human impacts that would result from a nuclear winter, it is relatively simple to predict those which would be most profound. That is, a nuclear winter would cause most humans and large animals to die from nuclear famine in a mass extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Following the detonation (in conflict) of US and/or Russian launch-ready strategic nuclear weapons, nuclear firestorms would burn simultaneously over a total land surface area of many thousands or tens of thousands of square miles. These mass fires, many of which would rage over large cities and industrial areas, would release many tens of millions of tons of black carbon soot and smoke (up to 180 million tons, according to peer-reviewed studies), which would rise rapidly above cloud level and into the stratosphere. For an explanation of the calculation of smoke emissions, see Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts. The scientists who completed the most recent peer-reviewed studies on nuclear winter discovered that the sunlight would heat the smoke, producing a self-lofting effect that would not only aid the rise of the smoke into the stratosphere (above cloud level, where it could not be rained out), but act to keep the smoke in the stratosphere for 10 years or more. The longevity of the smoke layer would act to greatly increase the severity of its effects upon the biosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the smoke (predicted to be produced by a range of strategic nuclear wars) would rapidly engulf the Earth and form a dense stratospheric smoke layer. The smoke from a war fought with strategic nuclear weapons would quickly prevent up to 70 of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35 of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Southern Hemisphere. Such an enormous loss of warming sunlight would produce Ice Age weather conditions on Earth in a matter of weeks. For a period of 1-3 years following the war, temperatures would fall below freezing every day in the central agricultural zones of North America and Eurasia. For an explanation of nuclear winter, see Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Nuclear winter would cause average global surface temperatures to become colder than they were at the height of the last Ice Age. Such extreme cold would eliminate growing seasons for many years, probably for a decade or longer. Can you imagine a winter that lasts for ten years? The results of such a scenario are obvious. Temperatures would be much too cold to grow food, and they would remain this way long enough to cause most humans and animals to starve to death. Global nuclear famine would ensue in a setting in which the infrastructure of the combatant nations has been totally destroyed, resulting in massive amounts of chemical and radioactive toxins being released into the biosphere. We don’t need a sophisticated study to tell us that no food and Ice Age temperatures for a decade would kill most people and animals on the planet. Would the few remaining survivors be able to survive in a radioactive, toxic environment? It is, of course, debatable whether or not nuclear winter could cause human extinction. There is essentially no way to truly “know” without fighting a strategic nuclear war. Yet while it is crucial that we all understand the mortal peril that we face, it is not necessary to engage in an unwinnable academic debate as to whether any humans will survive.
3/10/22
MARAPR-Ukraine CP
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westlake AC | Judge: Brandon Molina Plan text: In every democracy besides the Ukraine, a free press ought to prioritize indigenous objectivity over settler advocacy. The Ukraine should use advocacy. Ukraine war is optimistic, but maintaining outside support and low Russian morale’s key - Ukraine getting outside help from west - Kyiv’s history in soviet union and ties to Russia lowers morale - Low morale destroys new conscriptions which is key for Russia - Gives example of Ukrainian propaganda dissolving Russian army Knispel interviewing Goemans 3-9 Sandra Knispel, (Hein Goemans, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester, is an expert on international conflicts—on how they begin and end.) 3-9-2022, "How to end the war in Ukraine," NewsCenter, https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/how-to-end-the-ukraine-war-514522/ Jet QandA with Hein Goemans One or both sides must change their demands as a precursor to ending the war. What’s likely to happen in the current scenario? Putin made a big mistake by committing himself to total victory in Ukraine. Goemans: It depends on the performance on the battlefield, and a country’s expectations of outside help. Russia should have become more pessimistic in the last few days because Ukraine has shown its ability to inflict far greater costs on Russia than the Kremlin had anticipated. One would expect Russia therefore to lower its demands but we’ve seen very little evidence of that so far—only the demand of denazification seems to have been dropped. Overall, Putin still maintains that everything is going according to plan. If this continues, Ukrainian sovereignty may be at stake, which is dangerous and perhaps even stupid of Putin, who seems to be committing himself to total victory. If he can’t get it, he’ll be responsible and that makes a coup against him more likely. How has the situation changed for Ukraine and its demands for ending the war? Ukraine right now is not likely to accept anything less than full independence as a nation. Goemans: Ukraine must have gotten a lot more optimistic in recent days. Not just because its army has been doing reasonably well but because of the demonstrated incompetence of the Russian army. Yes, the Russians are still much stronger and much bigger, but there are problems with morale in the Russian army, and you see the remarkable level of Ukrainian support from the West. Ukrainians are still fighting for independence of their homeland and may maintain their claims to Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region in south-eastern Ukraine. I don’t know whether they’d willing to give up Crimea at this point. One avenue worth exploring in peace negotiations might be true plebiscites, overseen by international observers. Can Putin credibly commit not to go beyond the invasion of Ukraine? In his February 21 speech, he expressed his aim to reconstitute the Russian Empire. Goemans: No, he cannot. Nobody would believe him if he said he’d stop at Ukraine. People are pointing to the failed attempt to appease Hitler with the Munich Agreement in 1938. So that’s a non-starter, especially with Putin’s February 21st speech in which he said he wants to reconstitute greater Russia or the Russian Empire. Western nations can no longer say, ‘Oh, he doesn’t mean that. We can still do business there and we can have gas if we give him just a little bit, maybe two Ukrainian towns or so.’ He made that impossible. Yes, the analogy is overused, but it really is like Hitler in 1938. People heard the speech and the appeasement alarm bells went off. Global view of Russia and former Soviet satellite countries labeled. (University of Rochester illustration / Michael Osadciw) A deciding factor in this war is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. Can you explain the role of Russian conscripts in this context? The question is how many new conscripts will actually show up because it’ll determine the strength of the Russian army on the ground in Ukraine. Goemans: There are two things to keep in mind: First, the new Russian conscription class is going to be drafted in April. It’ll be very informative to see how many people do not show up. Secondly, are the Russians really going to bomb Kyiv, a so-called “hero city of the Soviet Union,” into rubble like they did with Chechnya’s capital Grosny? Are they willing to kill tens of thousands of people? Those two benchmarks will happen in the next few weeks. How precarious is the situation for Putin’s own survival? He may keep fighting, even if he knows he’s losing, because the alternative may mean signing his own death warrant. Goemans: Putin may count on the fact that Ukrainians will give in if Kyiv is bombed. But if they don’t, that should make him more pessimistic. One would think that he’d have to lower his demands, and that at that point, some kind of deal would be possible. But Putin must come home with some kind of victory because otherwise he’s literally dead. That means he may keep fighting, even if he knows he’s losing, because the alternative is signing his own death warrant. That’s what happened in the First World War. Germany kept fighting for years, even though the leadership knew that they were losing within the first weeks of the war. You’re not hyperbolic when you say Putin is signing his own death warrant with a defeat? History has plenty of examples here. Goemans: No, I’m not. In a regime like Russia—which is clearly not a democracy, but also not quite a dictatorship—if you win a war, you’re the great hero; if you lose a war, you have shown your incompetence and you’ll be removed, which I have explored in my own research. You’ll be held as what’s known as a “culpable leader”—culpable for the fact that the gains of the war do not outweigh the losses. Historically such leaders have been removed from office, and they either have gone into exile, or have been jailed or killed. A recent example is the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. What’s frightening, and there are already signs of this, is that Putin is moving towards a dictatorship because only full repression will prevent a coup against him. In that case, both the Russian and the Ukrainian people will suffer horribly. What do you think would happen with the war if Putin’s regime were to be overthrown? “Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and now want Crimea back.” Goemans: It’s possible that the entire Russian superstructure would be wiped out—not just Putin, but all his cronies, his security advisers, the oligarchs. That whole top layer could be removed. So the question is, if there’s a coup against Putin, what would the new Russian government insist on? They’re not necessarily all going to say, “Okay, sorry Ukraine, we made a mistake. Please excuse us.” And Ukrainians would not necessarily accept that anyway. Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and want Crimea back. Putin has said he wants to effect regime change in Ukraine—would a new government even have any credibility with Ukrainians? Ukrainians have become unified against Russia. Goemans: I don’t think so. There’s a new serious form of unity among the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian identity, and it’s in direct opposition to the Russians. It would be very dangerous for any Ukrainian government to be seen as colluding with Russia. Any such attempt would likely result in the formation of independent fighting units that would keep going to get the Russians out of Ukraine. What are the minimum terms the West can accept? The West cannot accept Putin’s winning in Ukraine, but they might we willing to accept concessions on the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, if Ukraine is willing to entertain that. Goemans: That’s an important question. The West—that is Western Democracies—cannot, in my opinion, accept a victorious Putin. The West is genuinely and correctly afraid of “salami tactics”—if he takes Ukraine, he will next take Georgia, and then he will go to the Baltics. Annexation wouldn’t end, so it has to stop now. Particularly because Putin so unmistakably declared his intentions in that speech on February 21st. Would the West accept Crimea as being Russian? I don’t know. Would the West accept Luhansk along the provincial administrative borders (which is not the same as the current line of control, which is currently roughly half of the of the provinces)? I doubt that. I think the West may demand a return to the status quo ante. I don’t know if they can get that. Maybe Ukraine would have to give up the entire administrative region of Luhansk and Donetsk. But the West will want to go back to the status quo. When do you think the war will end? Either in the next month and a half, or it’ll be years. Goemans: Either in the next month and a half, or it’ll be years. Months, if the new class of Russian conscripts in April fails to turn up. Otherwise I’m not optimistic. It’ll be ongoing bloodshed, pulverizing of Ukrainian cities, coupled with insurgencies, and Russia will never have full control of Ukraine. But going back to the video of the captured Russian soldier who was ashamed of taking part in the invasion of Ukraine: If he returns to Russia, he’ll most likely be killed. Yet, he’s speaking up and he’s hoping that he affects another guy, and then maybe two other guys, and it spreads like that. That’s how an army dissolves. On the other hand, that’s also how a Ukrainian army becomes more determined. Ukrainian propaganda is key to defeating Russia. Stuart A. Thompson 22 (reporter in the technology department covering misinformation and disinformation.) and Davey Alba (technology reporter covering disinformation. In 2019, she won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting and a Mirror Award) 3/3/2022, nytimes, Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine’s Information War, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html Just days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a pilot with a mysterious nickname was quickly becoming the conflict’s first wartime hero. Named the Ghost of Kyiv, the ace fighter had apparently single-handedly shot down several Russian fighter jets. The story was shared by the official Ukraine Twitter account on Sunday in a thrilling montage video set to thumping music, showing the fighter swooping through the Ukrainian skies as enemy planes exploded around him. The Security Service of Ukraine, the country’s main security agency, also relayed the tale on its official Telegram channel, which has over 700,000 subscribers. The story of a single pilot’s beating the superior Russian air force found wide appeal online, thanks to the official Ukraine accounts and many others. Videos of the so-called Ghost of Kyiv had more than 9.3 million views on Twitter, and the flier was mentioned in thousands of Facebook groups reaching up to 717 million followers. On YouTube, videos promoting the Ukrainian fighter collected 6.5 million views, while TikTok videos with the hashtag #ghostofkyiv reached 200 million views. There was just one problem: The Ghost of Kyiv may be a myth. While there are reports of some Russian planes that were destroyed in combat, there is no information linking them to a single Ukrainian pilot. One of the first videos that went viral, which was included in the montage shared by the official Ukraine Twitter account, was a computer rendering from a combat flight simulator originally uploaded by a YouTube user with just 3,000 subscribers. And a photo supposedly confirming the fighter’s existence, shared by a former president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was from a 2019 Twitter post by the Ukrainian defense ministry. When the fact-checking website Snopes published an article debunking the video, some social media users pushed back. “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.” In the information war over the invasion of Ukraine, some of the country’s official accounts have pushed stories with questionable veracity, spreading anecdotes, gripping on-the-ground accounts and even some unverified information that was later proved false, in a rapid jumble of fact and myth. The claims by Ukraine do not compare to the falsehoods being spread by Russia, which laid the groundwork for a “false flag” operation in the lead-up to the invasion, which the Biden administration sought to derail. As the invasion neared, Russia falsely claimed that it was responding to Ukrainian aggression and liberating citizens from fascists and neo-Nazis. And since the assault began, Russia made baseless claims that Ukrainians had indiscriminately bombed hospitals and killed civilians. Instead, Ukraine’s online propaganda is largely focused on its heroes and martyrs, characters who help dramatize tales of Ukrainian fortitude and Russian aggression. But the Ukrainian claims on social media have also raised thorny questions about how false and unproven content should be handled during war — when lives are at stake and a Western ally is fighting for its survival against a powerful invading force. “Ukraine is involved in pretty classic propaganda,” said Laura Edelson, a computer scientist studying misinformation at New York University. “They are telling stories that support their narrative. Sometimes false information is making its way in there, too, and more of it is getting through because of the overall environment.” Anecdotes detailing Ukrainian bravery or Russian brutality are crucial to the country’s war plan, according to experts, and they are part of established war doctrine that values winning not just individual skirmishes but also the hearts and minds of citizens and international observers. That is especially important during this conflict, as Ukrainians try to keep morale high among the fighters and marshal global support for their cause. “If Ukraine had no messages of the righteousness of its cause, the popularity of its cause, the valor of its heroes, the suffering of its populace, then it would lose,” said Peter W. Singer, a strategist and senior fellow at New America, a think tank in Washington. “Not just the information war, but it would lose the overall war.” In previous wars, combatants would try to sabotage enemy communication and limit the spread of wartime propaganda, even cutting physical communication lines like telegraph cables. But there are fewer such cables in the internet age, so in addition to downing communication towers and disrupting pockets of internet access, the modern strategy involves flooding the internet with viral messages that drown out opposing narratives. That digital battle moved at startling speed, experts noted, using an array of social media accounts, official websites and news conferences streamed online to spread Ukraine’s message. “You have to have the message that goes the most viral,” Mr. Singer said. That was the case with another report from Ukraine involving a remarkable confrontation on Snake Island, an outpost in the Black Sea. According to an audio recording released by Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, and later verified by Ukraine officials, 13 border guards were offered a frightening ultimatum by an advancing Russian military unit: Surrender or face an attack. The Ukrainians responded instead with an expletive, before apparently being killed. Audio of the exchange went viral on social media, and the clip posted on Feb. 24 by Pravda received more than 3.5 million views on YouTube. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine personally announced the deaths in a video, saying each guard would be awarded the title Hero of Ukraine. But just days later, Ukrainian officials confirmed in a Facebook post that the men were still alive, taken prisoner by Russian forces. Social media has become the main conduit for pushing the information, verified or not, giving tech companies a role in the information war, too. The fake Ghost of Kyiv video, for instance, was flagged as “out of context” by Twitter, but the montage posted to Ukraine’s official Twitter account received no such flag. The false photo posted by Mr. Poroshenko, the former Ukrainian president, also had no flag. While Twitter monitors its service for harmful content, including manipulated or mislabeled videos, it said tweets simply mentioning the Ghost of Kyiv did not violate its rules. “When we identify content and accounts that violate the Twitter Rules, we’ll take enforcement action,” the company said. In exercising discretion over how unverified or false content is moderated, social media companies have decided to “pick a side,” said Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory and a former head of security at Facebook. “I think this demonstrates the limits of ‘fact-checking’ in a fast-moving battle with real lives at stake,” Mr. Stamos said. He added that technology platforms never created rules against misinformation overall, instead targeting specific behaviors, actors and content. That leaves the truth behind some wartime narratives, like an apparent assassination plot against Mr. Zelensky or simply the number of troops killed in battle, fairly elusive, even as official accounts and news media share the information. Those narratives have continued as the war marches on, revealing the contours of an information war aimed not just at Western audiences but also at Russian citizens. At the United Nations on Monday, the Ukrainian ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, shared a series of text messages that he said had been retrieved from the phone of a dead Russian soldier. “Mama, I’m in Ukraine. There is a real war raging here. I’m afraid,” the Russian soldier apparently wrote, according to Mr. Kyslytsya’s account, which he read in Russian. The tale seemed to evoke a narrative advanced by officials and shared extensively on social media that Russian soldiers are poorly trained and too young, and don’t want to be fighting their Ukrainian neighbors. “We are bombing all of the cities together, even targeting civilians.” The story, whether true or not, appears tailor-made for Russian civilians — particularly parents fretting over the fate of their enlisted children, experts said. “This is an age-old tactic that the Ukrainians are trying to use, and that is to draw the attention of the mothers and the families in Russia away from the more grandiose aims for war onto, instead, the human costs of war,” said Ian Garner, a historian focusing on Russia who has followed Russian-language propaganda during the conflict. “We know that this is really effective.” Official Ukrainian accounts have also uploaded dozens of videos purportedly showing Russian prisoners of war, some with bloody bandages covering their arms or face. In the videos, the prisoners are heard denouncing the invasion. The videos may raise questions about whether Ukraine is violating the Geneva Conventions, which has rules about sharing images of war prisoners. Russia has also engaged in its own form of mythmaking, but experts say it has been far less effective. Rather than targeting international observers with emotional appeals, Russia has focused on swaying its own population to build support for the battle, Dr. Garner said. Since Russian state media is still calling the conflict a “special military operation” and not a war — in line with the description used by President Vladimir V. Putin — state broadcasters are left “trying to talk about a war that is apparently not happening,” Dr. Garner said. The Russian government “can’t play to its strongest narratives of individual sacrifice,” he added, instead relying on stories of Ukrainians bombing hospitals and civilians, providing no evidence. Ukraine’s efforts to amplify its own messages also leave little room for Russia to dominate the conversation, said Mr. Singer, the strategist from New America. “A key to information warfare in the age of social media is to recognize that the audience is both target of and participant in it,” he said. He added that social media users were “hopefully sharing out those messages, which makes them combatants of a sort as well.”
Ukraine’s info war is key to defeating Russia. Sinan Aral 22 (director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy and author of "The Hype Machine) 3/1/2022, Ukraine is winning the information war, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/01/information-war-zelensky-ukraine-putin-russia/ Today, the information war in Ukraine is more intense, more tightly contested and arguably more important than ever because motivating volunteer fighters at home and encouraging foreign support abroad are critical to success. And this time, it seems, Russia is losing. Reports abound on social media of more than 4,000 Russian casualties, images of crippled Russian helicopters and armored vehicles and cellphone videos of savage Russian missile attacks on civilian targets. This mix of official Ukrainian war statistics combined with videos (both verified and unverified), posted by Ukrainian citizens and sympathizers from the front lines, is painting a vivid picture of a homegrown resistance successfully slowing the advance of a much larger and ostensibly better organized military machine. Facebook posts showing Ukrainians kneeling in front of tanks to stop their progress and Twitter images of women and children sheltering in subways and basements set the emotional backdrop of senseless aggression against a peaceful nation. Viral videos and audio clips evoke a defiant optimism impossible to ignore: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appearing via his cellphone walking the streets of Kyiv, unharmed, in a “proof of life” demonstration emphasizing his willingness to stay and fight for his country, despite a U.S. offer to evacuate him, for example, or the recording of soldiers in an isolated Ukrainian outpost on Snake Island, in the Black Sea, cursing and telling off the Russian Black Sea Fleet. These stories are spreading rapidly on social media and subsequently echoing through official news channels in a media feedback loop that amplifies the information war and broadcasts it on television sets all over the world. Zelensky, in particular, is deftly outmaneuvering Putin in this information war. He rallied Ukrainian men to defend their homeland, used the encrypted messaging platform Telegram to speak directly to the Russian people to counter Putin’s narrative, urged the West to step up its assistance in defense of law, order and peace, and even pleaded with foreigners to cross the border into Ukraine to defend Western democracy. While misinformation exists on both sides, Zelensky gives the impression that he’s more committed to truth and transparency. In contrast, Russia has been secretive, obfuscating the true extent of its incursion into Ukraine, and out of touch, airing the rambling addresses of its leader. It’s as if Putin has forgotten that social media transitioned from text to real-time video around the time of the Crimean annexation. In today’s information war, Russian news claiming Zelensky had turned tail and fled was swiftly countered by a video selfie of the Ukrainian president in Kyiv, vowing to defend his homeland. The symbolic contrast between Zelensky striding through war-torn streets, confident even under fire, and Putin, seated, hunched over a large wooden desk in the safety of a secure office hundreds of miles away from the fighting, is stark. This time, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google are also proactively engaged in the information war. During the Crimean annexation, they were reactive and struggled to keep up with misinformation and false abuse reports. Today, in Ukraine, they have banned Russian state-owned media from advertising on their platforms and defiantly fact-checked Putin’s propaganda despite Russia’s protests and a full ban of Twitter and a partial ban of Facebook in Russia. Facebook has spun up a special operations center, staffed with native Russian and Ukrainian speakers, to monitor misinformation posted about the war, added warning labels to war-related images that its software detects are more than a year old, and restricted access to content from the state-affiliated Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik. YouTube is restricting access to Russian state-owned media outlets for users in Ukraine, removing Russian state-owned channels from recommendations, and limiting their content’s reach across the platform. Twitter has temporarily banned all ads in Ukraine and Russia, added labels to tweets with links to Russian state-affiliated media and downranked their content in algorithmic timelines. While numerous fake videos are circulating on TikTok about Ukraine, the Chinese-owned platform has no comprehensive policy on policing information about the conflict. Despite blocking state-owned Russian media in the European Union, this information flows freely in Ukraine and Russia on the platform, now dubbed “WarTok” by some observers, in part because it is organizing such videos into a convenient discover playlist by the same name. The information war is critical to what happens next in Ukraine for several reasons. It motivates the resistance by inspiring Ukrainian citizens to take up arms in defense of their country and motivating them with social proof that they are united and not fighting alone. It encourages foreign assistance, pressuring Europe and the United States to step up their efforts to end the conflict. It fans the flames of protest in Russia, mobilizing the antiwar movement in Moscow and elsewhere in defiance of Putin’s aggression. And it may even eventually demoralize Russian troops, who must be wondering what on earth they are doing in Ukraine if the motivation for the intervention has been a lie all along. When Russia struck a Ukrainian television tower on Tuesday, it seemed to confirm Moscow’s keen awareness of the need to counter Ukraine’s information war and to highlight the importance of information in modern conflicts. Information campaigns are difficult to quantify during the fog of war. But while it is hard to pinpoint the extent to which the information war is contributing to the overwhelming international unity against Putin’s aggression, one thing is clear: Social media, mainstream media and the narrative framing of the invasion of Ukraine undoubtedly will play an important role in how this conflict ends. Now, vigilance and fortitude are not only needed on the battlefield, where lives and territory will be won and lost, but also will be essential online, where the hearts and minds of the world will be won or lost.
Russian win would lead to escalation in multiple forums – goes global. LIANA FIX 22 (Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, in Washington, D.C). MICHAEL KIMMAGE (Professor of History at the Catholic University of America and a Visiting Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. )2/18/22, What If Russia Wins? A Kremlin-Controlled Ukraine Would Transform Europe, Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-18/what-if-russia-wins If Russia gains control of Ukraine or manages to destabilize it on a major scale, a new era for the United States and for Europe will begin. U.S. and European leaders would face the dual challenge of rethinking European security and of not being drawn into a larger war with Russia. All sides would have to consider the potential of nuclear-armed adversaries in direct confrontation. These two responsibilities—robustly defending European peace and prudently avoiding military escalation with Russia—will not necessarily be compatible. The United States and its allies could find themselves deeply unprepared for the task of having to create a new European security order as a result of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. MANY WAYS TO WIN For Russia, victory in Ukraine could take various forms. As in Syria, victory does not have to result in a sustainable settlement. It could involve the installation of a compliant government in Kyiv or the partition of the country. Alternatively, the defeat of the Ukrainian military and the negotiation of a Ukrainian surrender could effectively transform Ukraine into a failed state. Russia could also employ devastating cyberattacks and disinformation tools, backed by the threat of force, to cripple the country and induce regime change. With any of these outcomes, Ukraine will have been effectively detached from the West. If Russia achieves its political aims in Ukraine by military means, Europe will not be what it was before the war. Not only will U.S. primacy in Europe have been qualified; any sense that the European Union or NATO can ensure peace on the continent will be the artifact of a lost age. Instead, security in Europe will have to be reduced to defending the core members of the EU and NATO. Everyone outside the clubs will stand alone, with the exception of Finland and Sweden. This may not necessarily be a conscious decision to end enlargement or association policies; but it will be de facto policy. Under a perceived siege by Russia, the EU and NATO will no longer have the capacity for ambitious policies beyond their own borders. The United States and Europe will also be in a state of permanent economic war with Russia. The West will seek to enforce sweeping sanctions, which Russia is likely to parry with cyber-measures and energy blackmailing, given the economic asymmetries. China might well stand on Russia’s side in this economic tit for tat. Meanwhile, domestic politics in European countries will resemble a twenty-first-century great game, in which Russia will be studying Europe for any breakdown in the commitment to NATO and to the transatlantic relationship. Through methods fair and foul, Russia will take whatever opportunity comes its way to influence public opinion and elections in European countries. Russia will be an anarchic presence—sometimes real, sometimes imagined—in every instance of European political instability. Cold War analogies will not be helpful in a world with a Russianized Ukraine. The Cold War border in Europe had its flash points, but it was stabilized in a mutually acceptable fashion in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. By contrast, Russian suzerainty over Ukraine would open a vast zone of destabilization and insecurity from Estonia to Poland to Romania to Turkey. For as long as it lasts, Russia’s presence in Ukraine will be perceived by Ukraine’s neighbors as provocative and unacceptable and, for some, as a threat to their own security. Amid this shifting dynamic, order in Europe will have to be conceived of in primarily military terms—which, since Russia has a stronger hand in the military than in the economic realm, will be in the Kremlin’s interest—sidelining nonmilitary institutions such as the European Union. Russia has Europe’s largest conventional military, which it is more than ready to use. The EU’s defense policy—in contrast to NATO’s—is far from being able to provide security for its members. Thus will military reassurance, especially of the EU’s eastern members, be key. Responding to a revanchist Russia with sanctions and with the rhetorical proclamation of a rules-based international order will not be sufficient. IMPERILING EUROPE'S EAST In the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine, Germany‘s position in Europe will be severely challenged. Germany is a marginal military power that has based its postwar political identity on the rejection of war. The ring of friends it has surrounded itself with, especially in the east with Poland and the Baltic states, risks being destabilized by Russia. France and the United Kingdom will assume leading roles in European affairs by virtue of their comparatively strong militaries and long tradition of military interventions. The key factor in Europe, however, will remain the United States. NATO will depend on U.S. support as will the anxious and imperiled countries of Europe’s east, the frontline nations arrayed along a now very large, expanded, and uncertain line of contact with Russia, including Belarus and the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. Eastern member states, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, will likely have substantial numbers of NATO troops permanently stationed on their soil. A request from Finland and Sweden to gain an Article 5 commitment and to join NATO would be impossible to reject. In Ukraine, EU and NATO countries will never recognize a new Russian-backed regime created by Moscow. But they will face the same challenge they do with Belarus: wielding sanctions without punishing the population and supporting those in need without having access to them. Some NATO members will bolster a Ukrainian insurgency, to which Russia will respond by threatening NATO members. Ukraine’s predicament will be very great. Refugees will flee in multiple directions, quite possibly in the millions. And those parts of the Ukrainian military that are not directly defeated will continue fighting, echoing the partisan warfare that tore apart this whole region of Europe during and after World War II. The permanent state of escalation between Russia and Europe may stay cold from a military perspective. It is likely, though, to be economically hot. The sanctions put on Russia in 2014, which were connected to formal diplomacy (often referred to as the “Minsk” process, after the city in which the negotiations were held), were not draconian. They were reversible as well as conditional. Following a Russian invasion of Ukraine, new sanctions on banking and on technology transfer would be significant and permanent. They would come in the wake of failed diplomacy and would start at “the top of the ladder,” according to the U.S. administration. In response, Russia will retaliate, quite possibly in the cyber-domain as well as in the energy sector. Moscow will limit access to critical goods such as titanium, of which Russia has been the world’s second-largest exporter. This war of attrition will test both sides. Russia will be ruthless in trying to get one or several European states to back away from economic conflict by linking a relaxation in tension to these countries’ self-interest, thus undermining consensus in the EU and NATO. Europe’s strong suit is its economic leverage. Russia’s asset will be any source of domestic division or disruption in Europe or in Europe’s transatlantic partners. Here Russia will be proactive and opportunistic. If a pro-Russian movement or candidate shows up, that candidate can be encouraged directly or indirectly. If an economic or political sore point diminishes the foreign policy efficacy of the United States and its allies, it will be a weapon for Russian propaganda efforts and for Russian espionage. Much of this is already happening. But a war in Ukraine will up the ante. Russia will use more resources and be unchained in its choice of instruments. The massive refugee flows arriving in Europe will exacerbate the EU’s unresolved refugee policy and provide fertile ground for populists. The holy grail of these informational, political, and cyberbattles will be the 2024 presidential election in the United States. Europe’s future will depend on this election. The election of Donald Trump or of a Trumpian candidate might destroy the transatlantic relationship at Europe’s hour of maximum peril, putting into question NATO’s position and its security guarantees for Europe. TURNING NATO INWARD For the United States, a Russian victory would have profound effects on its grand strategy in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. First, Russian success in Ukraine would require Washington to pivot to Europe. No ambiguity about NATO’s Article 5 (of the kind experienced under Trump) will be permissible. Only a strong U.S. commitment to European security will prevent Russia from dividing European countries from one another. This will be difficult in light of competing priorities, especially those that confront the United States in a deteriorating relationship with China. But the interests at stake are fundamental. The United States has very large commercial equities in Europe. The European Union and the United States are each other’s largest trade and investment partners, with trade in goods and services totaling $1.1 trillion in 2019. A well-functioning, peaceful Europe augments American foreign policy—on climate change, on nonproliferation, on global public health, and on the management of tensions with China or Russia. If Europe is destabilized, then the United States will be much more alone in the world. NATO is the logical means by which the United States can provide security reassurance to Europe and deter Russia. A war in Ukraine would revive NATO not as a democracy-building enterprise or as a tool for out-of-area expeditions like the war in Afghanistan but as the unsurpassed defensive military alliance that it was designed to be. Although Europeans will be demanding a greater military commitment to Europe from the United States, a broader Russian invasion of Ukraine should drive every NATO member to increase its defense spending. For Europeans, this would be the final call to improve Europe’s defensive capabilities—in tandem with the United States—in order to help the United States manage the Russian-Chinese dilemma. For a Moscow now in permanent confrontation with the West, Beijing could serve as an economic backstop and a partner in opposing U.S. hegemony. In the worst case for U.S. grand strategy, China might be emboldened by Russia’s assertiveness and threaten confrontation over Taiwan. But there is no guarantee that an escalation in Ukraine will benefit the Sino-Russian relationship. China’s ambition to become the central node of the Eurasian economy will be damaged by war in Europe, because of the brutal uncertainties war brings. Chinese irritation with a Russia on the march will not enable a rapprochement between Washington and Beijing, but it may initiate new conversations. Nuclear detonations cause nuclear winter and extinction, and the rainout effect is wrong – self-lofting means soot goes above the clouds Starr 15 Steven Starr, 10-14-2015, "Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction," Federation Of American Scientists, Steven Starr is the director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology., https://fas.org/pir-pubs/nuclear-war-nuclear-winter-and-human-extinction/, SJBE While it is impossible to precisely predict all the human impacts that would result from a nuclear winter, it is relatively simple to predict those which would be most profound. That is, a nuclear winter would cause most humans and large animals to die from nuclear famine in a mass extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Following the detonation (in conflict) of US and/or Russian launch-ready strategic nuclear weapons, nuclear firestorms would burn simultaneously over a total land surface area of many thousands or tens of thousands of square miles. These mass fires, many of which would rage over large cities and industrial areas, would release many tens of millions of tons of black carbon soot and smoke (up to 180 million tons, according to peer-reviewed studies), which would rise rapidly above cloud level and into the stratosphere. For an explanation of the calculation of smoke emissions, see Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts. The scientists who completed the most recent peer-reviewed studies on nuclear winter discovered that the sunlight would heat the smoke, producing a self-lofting effect that would not only aid the rise of the smoke into the stratosphere (above cloud level, where it could not be rained out), but act to keep the smoke in the stratosphere for 10 years or more. The longevity of the smoke layer would act to greatly increase the severity of its effects upon the biosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the smoke (predicted to be produced by a range of strategic nuclear wars) would rapidly engulf the Earth and form a dense stratospheric smoke layer. The smoke from a war fought with strategic nuclear weapons would quickly prevent up to 70 of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35 of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Southern Hemisphere. Such an enormous loss of warming sunlight would produce Ice Age weather conditions on Earth in a matter of weeks. For a period of 1-3 years following the war, temperatures would fall below freezing every day in the central agricultural zones of North America and Eurasia. For an explanation of nuclear winter, see Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Nuclear winter would cause average global surface temperatures to become colder than they were at the height of the last Ice Age. Such extreme cold would eliminate growing seasons for many years, probably for a decade or longer. Can you imagine a winter that lasts for ten years? The results of such a scenario are obvious. Temperatures would be much too cold to grow food, and they would remain this way long enough to cause most humans and animals to starve to death. Global nuclear famine would ensue in a setting in which the infrastructure of the combatant nations has been totally destroyed, resulting in massive amounts of chemical and radioactive toxins being released into the biosphere. We don’t need a sophisticated study to tell us that no food and Ice Age temperatures for a decade would kill most people and animals on the planet. Would the few remaining survivors be able to survive in a radioactive, toxic environment? It is, of course, debatable whether or not nuclear winter could cause human extinction. There is essentially no way to truly “know” without fighting a strategic nuclear war. Yet while it is crucial that we all understand the mortal peril that we face, it is not necessary to engage in an unwinnable academic debate as to whether any humans will survive.
3/10/22
NOVDEC-Air Traffic Workers CP
Tournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Barbers Hill SC | Judge: Dylan Jones
3
Text: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike except for air traffic workers.
It competes – unconditional means "not conditional or limited: absolute" as per merriam webster
pandemic-induced collapse that bottomed out in the second quarter of 2020.
Strong Airline Industry key to global trade and the economy – strikes obliterate these benefits.
PWC 16, Pricewaterhouse Coopers. "Economic impact of air traffic control strikes in Europe." (2016). (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP)Elmer 2.2.1 The importance of connectivity The International Civil Aviation Organization (
AND
this linkage directly into our economic modelling of the impact of ATC strikes.
Collapse of Trade causes Hotspot Escalation – goes Nuclear.
deterrents to conflict declining around the world, major wars could soon return.
Any nuclear war causes extinction – ice age and famine.
Steven Starr 15 ~Director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has worked with the Swiss, Chilean, and Swedish governments in support of their efforts at the United Nations to eliminate thousands of high-alert, launch-ready U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons; he maintains the website Nuclear Darkness. "Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen." Ratical. March 2015. https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/StevenStarr022815.html~~ TG Re-Cut Justin A war fought with 21st century strategic nuclear weapons would be more than just a
AND
the operational and deployed nuclear arsenals, will leave the Earth essentially uninhabitable.
12/4/21
NOVDEC-Health Workers PIC
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Sreyaash Das
4
CP Text: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike except for public health officials and those who work in the public health industry.
In the squo, the right to strike is banned by the ILO for essential workers.
Chima 13 Chima, Sylvester C. "Global Medicine: Is It Ethical or Morally Justifiable for Doctors and Other Healthcare Workers to Go on Strike?" BMC Medical Ethics, BioMed Central, 19 Dec. 2013, bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-14-S1-S5. SJEP Despite the fundamental importance of the right to strike in collective bargaining and industrial relations
AND
Our definitions outweigh on common usage -it’s the first definition on google definitions
Nurse strikes increase the percentage of patient mortality and destroy hospital finances – empirics.
hospitals. They also canceled procedures and appointments in preparation of a strike.
Hospitals are the critical internal link for pandemic preparedness.
Al Thobaity 20, Abdullelah, and Farhan Alshammari. "Nurses on the frontline against the COVID-19 pandemic: an Integrative review." Dubai Medical Journal 3.3 (2020): 87-92. (Associate Professor of Nursing at Taif University) The majority of infected or symptomatic people seek medical treatment in medical facilities, particularly
AND
disaster, responsible people will do all but the impossible to save lives.
New Pandemics are deadlier and faster are coming – COVID is just the beginning
Antonelli 20 Ashley Fuoco Antonelli 5-15-2020 https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/05/15/weekly-line "Weekly line: Why deadly disease outbreaks could become more common—even after Covid-19" (Associate Editor — American Health Line) While the new coronavirus pandemic suddenly took the world by storm, the truth is
AND
globalization is likely to continue—meaning so could infectious diseases' far spread.
10/30/21
NOVDEC-ICJ CP
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Check open source my wikify isn't working rn-dm me for doc
10/29/21
NOVDEC-Inflation DA
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Sreyaash Das
2
Post-Covid economic recovery is fragile now- inflation is adding pressure.
Lynch 6-11 ~David J. Lynch Washington, D.C. Financial writer covering trade and globalization Washington Post, 6-11-2021, "Rising prices in the U.S. could rattle other countries amid uneven global recovery," https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/06/11/inflation-fed-biden-recovery/~~ 6/13/2021 U.S. leaders stumbled in their initial pandemic response. But they did
AND
loans more expensive for foreign businesses that earn local currency from their operations.
Unions’ demands for higher wages causes an inflationary spiral.
Guida 6-4 Victoria Guida ~an economics reporter covering the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the broader economy. She has spent her Washington career writing about bank regulations, monetary policy and trade negotiations. A Dallas native, she graduated from the University of Missouri with a double major
AND
. That’s not the same thing as inflation due to temporary supply shortages."
in motion spur labor-law reforms, not the other way around."
Infrastructure secures the grid against worsening and increasing cyberattacks.
Carney 21 ~Chris; 8/6/21; Senior policy advisor at Nossaman LLC, former US Representative, former professor of political science at Penn State University; "The US Senate Infrastructure Bill: Securing Our Electrical Grid Through P3s and Grants," JDSupra, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-us-senate-infrastructure-bill-4989100/~~ Justin As we begin to better understand the main components of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
AND
partnerships and grants, the nation can quickly secure its infrastructure from cyberattacks.
Cyberattacks on the grid spiral to all-out nuclear conflict.
such attacks "could lead to major conflict and possibly nuclear war."14
12/4/21
NOVDEC-NC-Kant
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Check open source my wikify isn't working rn-dm me for doc
10/29/21
NOVDEC-Stock Market DA
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Sreyaash Das
1
The stock market is trending upwards but it’s uncertain – blips aren’t enough to disprove the general trend and recent developments prove.
Miao and Macheel 10/21 ~Tanaya and Hannah; 10/21/21; Reporter at CNBC, Associate Markets Reporter, graduated summa cum laude from Duke University with a degree in public policy; "SandP 500 slips from record, but heads for winning week on strong earnings," CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html~~ Justin The SandP 500 edged lower a day after the benchmark closed at a
AND
foreign bondholders, staving off a default for the property developer.
Best data proves union strike victories statistically cause stock market crash.
Lee and Mas 12 ~David; Princeton University and National Bureau of Economic Research; Alexandre; Princeton University and National Bureau of Economic Research; "Long-Run Impacts of Unions on Firms: New Evidence from Financial Markets, 1961–1999," The Quarterly Journal Of Economics; February 2012; https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/127/1/333/1834007?redirectedFrom=fulltext~~ Justin We begin analyzing the stock market reaction to union victories using event-study methodologies
AND
returns for cases where the union won the election by a large margin.
The next market crash causes economic collapse – conditions are ripe for failure.
than $300bn in debt – the most indebted company in the world.
Extinction.
Liu '18 ~Qian; 11/13/18; Managing Director of Greater China for The Economist Group, previously director of the global economics unit and director of Access China for the Economist Intelligence Unit, PhD in economics from Uppsala University; "The next economic crisis could cause a global conflict. Here's why," https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/the-next-economic-crisis-could-cause-a-global-conflict-heres-why/~~ Justin The next economic crisis is closer than you think. But what you should really
AND
sensible and respectful global dialogue. The alternative may well be global conflagration.
10/30/21
NOVDEC-T-Must not spec Governments
Tournament: Florida Blue Key | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Check open source my wikify isn't working rn-dm me for doc
10/29/21
NSD-AI Innovation DA
Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Jasmine Zhang | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy cites are broken for me-check open source
Counterplan Text-A just government ought to Implement a Compulsory Interest Arbitration Mechanism to settle public labor disputes
Solves the aff-allows effective collective bargaining without destructive strikes-its condo
Alaine S. Williams, 1979, Florida Law Review, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217315075.pdf//SJJK If the legislature has enacted legislation which inadequately implements and protects the constitutional right to
AND
likely to account for an impasse than the availability of arbitration machinery. 0
The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement – their framing collapses since you must say it is true that a world is better than another before you adopt it.
Scalar methods like comparison increases intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – T/F binary is descriptive and technical.
a priori’s 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates and pragmatic truth.
Most inclusive because other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape.
The 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 which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional – controls the internal link to fairness since it’s the basis of things like predictability and prep and jurisdiction is a meta constraint on anything else since the judge voting aff if they affirm better and neg the contrary proves that it’s an independent voter and otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means hack against them if they contest it and it also controls the internal link to fairness since that’s definitionally unfair. I denied the truth of the resolution by disagreeing with the aff which means I’ve met my burden.
7/8/21
NSD-Outsourcing DA
Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Jasmine Zhang | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy cites are broken for me-check open source
7/7/21
NSD-Warming CP
Tournament: 2021 NSD Camp Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Jasmine Zhang | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy cites are broken for me-check open source
of research capacity will negatively affect Americans’ access to cutting-edge therapies.
The plan gives away sensitive biotechnology information that facilitates a China lead.
Rogin 21 ~Josh; Columnist for the Global Opinions section of the Washington Post and a political analyst with CNN. Previously, he has covered foreign policy and national security for Bloomberg View, Newsweek, the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine and Japan’s Asahi Shimbun newspaper. He was a 2011 finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists and the 2011 recipient of the Interaction Award for Excellence in International Reporting. Rogin holds a BA in international affairs from George Washington University and studied at Sophia University in Tokyo. He lives in Washington, DC; "Opinion: The wrong way to fight vaccine nationalism," The Washington Post; 4/8/21; https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-wrong-way-to-fight-vaccine-nationalism/2021/04/08/9a65e15e-98a8-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819'story.html~~ Justin Americans will not be safe from covid-19 until the entire world is safe
AND
Cohen, senior fellow at the University of California at Berkeley Law School.
Gains are directly converted to military prowess – destroys US primacy.
are tailored to overcome the immune system or the microbiome of specific populations.
That causes extinction.
Yulis 17 ~Max; Major in PoliSci, Penn Political Review; "In Defense of Liberal Internationalism," Penn Political Review; 4/8/17; http://pennpoliticalreview.org/2017/04/in-defense-of-liberal-internationalism/~~ Re-Cut Justin Over the past decade, international headlines have been bombarded with stories about the unraveling
AND
limelight to advocate the virtues of peace, stability, and human rights.
The United States ought to reduce intellectual property protections for Covid-19 vaccines through a supreme court decision by petitioning the PTAB and getting a formal ruling from APJs.
APJs have the authority to rule on intellectual property—-the CP solves case.
not the sea change that those sympathetic to Arthrex’s cause were hoping for.
Circumvention is inevitable—-the aff is unconstitutional and companies use that as a sword to prevent loss of IP.
Brown 21 ~Delphine; 7/21/21; Partner in the firm's Litigation Practice Group, and a member of its Intellectual Property Practice Team. With over twenty years of trial experience, Delphine's practice focuses on complex intellectual property and technology cases, with extensive experience in the life sciences industry. Delphine has served as lead counsel for several global pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman litigation and trials involving dozens of drug products, dosage forms and delivery systems. Delphine’s lead counsel expertise also includes patent litigation involving biotech, medical device, computer hardware and software, design and business method patents, and counseling of established and emerging biotechnology companies regarding intellectual property, regulatory and litigation issues. Delphine has served as lead trial counsel in complex trademark and copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition cases. Delphine believes that the key to being the best litigator and trial lawyer is always keeping her "eyes on the prize" which she defines with her clients as accomplishing both legal victory and strategic objectives to get the client back to running its business as quickly as possible. A corporate client once remarked to Delphine's parents at her birthday party that "if Delphine wasn't such a good lawyer, we wouldn't have become such great friends." Delphine has three decades of experience representing both U.S. and foreign corporations in federal and state courts nationwide in pretrial proceedings, trials and appeals, and in arbitration proceedings. Delphine frequently publishes thought leadership and speaks on intellectual property issues. Delphine received her bachelors degree from Princeton University and her J.D. from St. John's University School of Law. In her spare time, she serves on the boards of several private foundations, and the CT Selection Committee for the Princeton Prize in Race Relations, as well as a USA swimming official. Delphine also enjoys skiing, golf, tennis and classic wood boats; "Powerhouse Points: Will TRIPS Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines Serve Global Need," Freeborn, https://www.freeborn.com/perspectives/powerhouse-points-will-trips-waiver-ip-protection-covid-19-vaccines-serve-global-need~~ Justin Despite the current U.S. administration’s apparent support for waiving IP protection for
AND
companies would be the subject of jurisdictional challenges and lack effective enforcement mechanisms.
9/4/21
SEPTOCT-Infrastructure DA
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Akshay Manglik Bipartisan infrastructure bill passing now but PC is needed – there is no margin for error. Kapur et al 9/8 Sahil, Frank Thorp, and Leigh Ann Caldwell; 9/8/21; Sahil Kapur is a national political reporter for NBC News, Frank Thorp V is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the Senate, Leigh Ann Caldwell is an NBC News correspondent; “Democrats plow 'full speed ahead' on sweeping Biden budget, despite tensions,” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-plow-full-speed-ahead-sweeping-biden-budget-despite-tensions-n1278722 Justin WASHINGTON — The top two Democrats in the towel.”
Aff doesn’t solve but requires negotiations that saps PC. Pooley 21 James; Former deputy director general of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization and a member of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding; “Drawn-Out Negotiations Over Covid IP Will Blow Back on Biden,” Barron’s; 5/26/21; https://www.barrons.com/articles/drawn-out-negotiations-over-covid-ip-will-blow-back-on-biden-51621973675 Justin The Biden administration recently to countries in need.
Infrastructure secures the grid against worsening and increasing cyberattacks. Carney 21 Chris; 8/6/21; Senior policy advisor at Nossaman LLC, former US Representative, former professor of political science at Penn State University; "The US Senate Infrastructure Bill: Securing Our Electrical Grid Through P3s and Grants," JDSupra, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-us-senate-infrastructure-bill-4989100/ Justin As we begin infrastructure from cyberattacks.
Pharma innovation high now – monetary incentive is the biggest factor.
Swagel 21 Phillip L. Swagel, Director of the Congressional budget office 4-xx-2021, "Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Congressional Budget Office, https://www.cbo.goc/publication/57126~~#'idTextAnchor020 SJDA Every year, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry develops a variety of new
AND
drugs), and conducting postapproval testing for safety-monitoring or marketing purposes.
The aff crushes innovation in the pharma sector—-incentivizes them to focus on non-important issues.
Glassman 21 ~Amanda; 5/6/21; Executive vice president and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington and London; "Big Pharma Is Not the Tobacco Industry," Barron, https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-pharma-is-not-the-tobacco-industry-51620315693~~ Justin But here is the crux of the problem: The pharmaceutical industry is not the
AND
by ponying up cash to vaccinate the entire world. No confiscation necessary.
Pharma Innovation prevents Extinction – checks new diseases.
Engelhardt 8, H. Tristram. Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry: critical reflections on the virtues of profit. M and M Scrivener Press, 2008 (doctorate in philosophy (University of Texas at Austin), M.D. (Tulane University), professor of philosophy (Rice University), and professor emeritus at Baylor College of Medicine) Many are suspicious of, or indeed jealous of, the good fortune of others
AND
profit in medicine and especially in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries.
Pharma spills-over – has cascading global impacts that are necessary for human survival.
NAS 8 National Academy of Sciences 12-3-2008 "The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future Summary of a Workshop" Re-cut by Elmer Fostering Industries to Counter Global Problems The life sciences have applications in areas that range
AND
biological processes at work in the oceans can humans live sustainably on earth.
Permissibility and presumption negate – a. the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation b. Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false so negate because the aff is probably false
The aff burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is logical, and the reciprocal neg burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is illogical.
Prefer:
1. Text – Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."
2. Debatability – a) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) Moral oughts cannot guide action.
Gray, Grey, JW. "The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get "Ought" from "Is?"" Ethical Realism. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. Massa The is/ought gap is a problem in moral philosophy where what is the
AND
arsenic. If it is, we have some more explaining to do.
4. Neg definition choice – The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.
~1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t logically going to happen.
~2~ Intellectual is defined as "possessing or showing intellect or mental compacity" (Dictionary.com) but property cant possess intellect so the resolutions incoherent
The reason morality exists is to regulate our actions towards others. If any moral code is not motivational then there is no reason to do what is right and that code merely fails to escape the skeptical conclusion. Motivational externalism collapses into Internalism.
Joyce 1, Richard (Professor of Philosophy at Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand). The Myth of Morality. 2001. ~Bracketed for grammatical clarity~ Back to the ~Suppose~ external reason~s~. Suppose it were claimed
AND
in that case the putative external reason collapses into an internal one.3
Additionally, agents can only be motivated by their own desires; not externally because A~ Empirical uncertainty- evil demon could deceive us, dreaming, simulation, and inability to know others’ experience make externalism an unreliable B~ Because individuals have unlimited wants and those are not communicated C~ Egoism- we only care about our own desires as individuals are self-interested and don’t care about helping others, even if we did know how to help.
Only a contractarian system that derives principles of mutual restraint from individuals’ self-interest account for this fact because contractarian principles are necessarily in the interest of all parties involved because they wouldn’t constrain their action against their will.
Gauthier 86 Gauthier, David P. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print. Moral principles are introduced as the objects of full voluntary ex ante agreement among rational
AND
for mutual constraint, and so for a moral dimension in their affairs.
Additionally, self-interest is determined at the time of the original decision to rise to a norm of mutual self-restraint. For example, I might say that eating ice cream is in my self-interest because I’m hungry even if it will lead to extinction somehow in the future.
Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarian principles of mutual restraint, defined as the principles by which individuals constrain their actions with the belief that doing so would serve their self-interest.
Prefer additionally:
1~ Consent- contractarianism is based on consent which determines what qualifies as a net good or harm. Moral theories must be based in consent otherwise actions could never be determinate.
2~ Regress- we can always question morality- authority begs the question of why their assessment ought be preferred over other assessments- Contractarianism avoids this by allowing individuals to construct conceptions of the good based on a rational restriction of their future actions.
3~ Performativity- You agree to 4 minutes of prep and if you tried to go over the judges would down you- their very performance justifies the NC framework and proves it collapses.
Offense
Negate:
1~ Affs violate a host of existing private contracts.
Sauer 21 ~Hans; Deputy General Counsel and Vice President for Intellectual Property for the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), a major trade association representing more than 1,000 biotechnology companies from the medical, agricultural, environmental, and industrial sectors. At BIO, he advises the organization’s board of directors, amicus committee, and various staff committees on patent and other intellectual-property-related matters. Before taking his current position at BIO in 2006, he was chief patent counsel for MGI Pharma Inc. in Bloomington, MN, and senior patent counsel for Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Baltimore, MD. Mr. Sauer holds a M.S. degree in biology from the University of Ulm in his native Germany, a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Lund, Sweden, and a J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center, where he serves as adjunct professor; "Waiving IP Rights During Times of COVID: A ‘False Good Idea’," IP Watch Dog; 4/19/21; https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/19/waiving-ip-rights-during-times-of-covid-a-false-good-idea/id=132399/~~ Justin One wonders whether Congressional proponents of the TRIPS Waiver have given any thought as to
AND
it is perplexing how little forethought seems to have gone into the proposal.
2~ Forecloses the ability for future contracts.
Hilty et al 21 ~Reto Hilty Director at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and a professor at the University of Zurich Pedro Henrique D. Batista Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Suelen Carls Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Daria Kim Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Matthias Lamping Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Peter R. Slowinski Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition; "10 Arguments against a Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights," Oxford Law; 6/29/21; https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/06/10-arguments-against-waiver-intellectual-property-rights~~ Justin 2. Intellectual property rights are the basis for collaborations and contracts The development cycle
AND
of these rights may therefore have detrimental consequences for the willingness to cooperate.
9/4/21
SEPTOCT-NC-Kant
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale OL | Judge: Isabella Nadel
2
Permissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.
Morality must be grounded in a priori truth to guide action, otherwise everyone would have different ethical codes and follow different rules. And, truth exists independent of human experience since certain things can be self-proving, i.e. a triangle has three sides. This is the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Things that are true by observation are just true by a matter of chance. For example, the cat may be on the mat, but we can also conceive of a world in which the cat is not on the mat. In contrast, we can’t conceive of a world in which a triangle does not have three sides since it is tautologically true. Reject a posteriori truth since they are just arbitrary states of being, not constitutive of ethics.
And, a priori truth has to apply to everyone: ~a~ absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless. ~b~ it’s a tautological contradiction: any non-universal norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.
Thus, the standard is consistency with willing universal maxims.
1NC – Offense
1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic use
Pozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut Cookie JX Corpus mysticum, opus mysticum, propriété incorporelle, proprietà letteraria, geistiges Eigentum.
AND
he was to make, as we say today, a free use.
2~The aff violates the categorical imperative and is non-universalizable- governments have a binding obligation to protect creations
theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies.
IPs are a necessary check on companies free-riding off associations of quality.
Wong et al 20 ~Liana, Ian, and Shayerah; Analyst in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Specialist in International Trade and Finance; "Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade," *Updated* 5/12/20; CRS; https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200512'RL34292'2023354cc06b0a4425a2c5e02c0b13024426d206.pdf~~ Justin Trademark protection in the United States is governed jointly by state and federal law.
AND
by registration with the PTO, through a process similar to trademark registration.
Negs get Contention Choice-1) phil ed-It’s key to robust philosophy debates rather than arbitrary contention debates which o/w since phil is unique to LD 2) It also prevents splitting the debate allowing for in depth clash and 2ar judge psychology spins on the contention level
agree is already doing great harm to our democracy," the letter said.
Aff doesn’t solve but requires negotiations that saps PC.
Pooley 21 ~James; Former deputy director general of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization and a member of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding; "Drawn-Out Negotiations Over Covid IP Will Blow Back on Biden," Barron’s; 5/26/21; https://www.barrons.com/articles/drawn-out-negotiations-over-covid-ip-will-blow-back-on-biden-51621973675~~ Justin The Biden administration recently announced its support for a proposal before the World Trade Organization
AND
helping export our surplus vaccine doses and vaccine ingredients to countries in need.
Antitrust is key to the DIB – brink is now.
Sitaraman 20 ~Ganesh; Vanderbilt University Law School; "The National Security Case for Breaking Up Big Tech," Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia; 3/12/20; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=3537870~~ brett Re-Cut Justin Concentration in the tech sector also threatens the defense industrial base due to higher costs
AND
redirected via monopoly profits to the pockets of big tech executives and shareholders.
That solves extinction through great power war.
Marks 19 ~Michael; Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for Security Assistance, Science and Technology at the U.S. Department of State; "Strengthen US Industry To Counter National Security Challenges," American Military News; 10/10/19; https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/10/strengthen-us-industry-to-counter-national-security-challenges/~~ Justin While U.S. defense budgets have recently been on the rise, it
AND
industry, therefore, will be critical to countering our national security challenges.
9/4/21
SEPTOCT-Scientists CP
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Jack Quisenbury Text: A nation appointed international panel of scientists including National Academies and corresponding organizations should reduce intellectual property protections and manage similar conflicts of interest between intellectual property.
International panel of science diplomats can rule over IP---that’s key to science diplomacy. Hajjar and Greenbaum 18 David; Dean Emeritus and University Distinguished Professor, and Professor of Biochemistry and Pathology at Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, a Jefferson Science Fellow of the National Academies at the U.S. Department of State, and a recent Senior Fellow in Science Policy at the Brookings Institute; Steven; Professor and Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Hunter College of the City University of New York and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was a Jefferson Science Fellow of the National Academies at the U.S. Department of State; “Leveraging Diplomacy for Managing Scientific Challenges,” American Diplomacy; September 18; https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2018/09/leveraging-diplomacy-for-managing-scientific-challenges-an-opportunity-to-navigate-the-future-of-science/ Justin At the global the greater good.
Interpretation: "nations" and "medicine" are generic bare plurals. The aff may not defend that a member nation or subset of nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for a certain type of medicine.
"colleges and universities" is generic rather than existential in the resolution.
It applies to "nations" and "medicine"– 1~ upward entailment test – "member nations of the World Trade Organization" doesn’t entail that political bodies ought to reduce intellectual property protections because it doesn’t prove that the UN should reduce and "member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn’t entail that member nations of the WTO ought to reduce IPP for drugs because it doesn’t prove that marijuana protections should be reduced.
Violation: They spec the US and the Covid vaccine.
Standards:
~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.
~2~ Limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from India to Indonesia with the combination of any kind of medicine such as cannabis— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications- i.e. I can’t read innovation because you delink out of it by only speccing cannabis — that explodes neg prep and leads to random country or drug of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain occupations which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec occupations.
~3~ TVA solves – you could’ve read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.
Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.
Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse 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
Interpretation: "medicines" is a generic bare plural. 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.
"colleges and universities" is generic rather than existential in the resolution.
It applies to "medicines" – 1~ upward entailment test – "member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn’t entail that member nations of the WTO ought to reduce IPP for drugs because it doesn’t prove that marijuana protections should be reduced 2~ adverb test – adding "always" to the res doesn’t substantially change its meaning because reduce is permanent.
Violation: They spec ''''''
Standards:
~1~ precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff.
~2~ Limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from Covid vaccines to HIV drugs to Insulin— 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 — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain medicines which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec medicines.
~3~ TVA solves – you could’ve read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.
Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified.
Drop the debater – a~ deter future abuse 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
9/4/21
SEPTOCT-T-reduce
Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Akshay Manglik Interpretation: Reduce means unconditional and permanent – the aff is a suspension. Reynolds 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Section 83's counterpart with regard adequately to indicate permanency.
Violation: They only reduce during public health emergencies.
Vote neg: 1 Limits and ground– their model allows affs to defend anything from pandemics to Biden’s presidency— there's no universal DA since it’s impossible to know the timeframe when there won’t be IP— that explodes neg prep and leads to random timeframe of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep (innovation, collaboration, econ, ptx: all core neg literature thrown away) 2 Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. 3 TVA – defend the advantage to a whole rez timeframe. We don’t prevent new FWs, mechanisms, or advantages. PICs don’t solve – our model allows you to specify countries and medicines. Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs because it’s the only intrinsic part of debate – all other rules can be debated over but rely on some conception of fairness to be justified. Drop the debater – a deter future abuse 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
9/26/21
SEPTOCT-Th-Enforcement Spec
Tournament: Loyola Invitational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Presentation NR | Judge: Duc Than Interpretation – the Affirmative must present a delineated enforcement mechanism for the Plan. There is no normal means since terms are negotiated contextually among member states. WTO No Date "Whose WTO is it anyway?" https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org1_e.htmElmer When WTO rules to withhold credit. Violation: they don’t Standards 1 Shiftiness- They can redefine the 1AC’s enforcement mechanism in the 1AR which allows them to recontextualize their enforcement mechanism to wriggle out of DA’s since all DA links are predicated on type of enforcement i.e. sanctions bad das, domestic politics das off of backlash, information research sharing da if they put monetary punishments, or trade das. 2 Real World - Policy makers will always specify how the mandates of the plan should be endorsed. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, states can circumvent the Aff’s policy since there is no delineated way to enforce the affirmative which means there’s no way to actualize any of their solvency arguments. ESpec isn’t regressive or arbitrary- it’s an active part of the WTO is central to any advocacy about international IP law since the only uniqueness of a reduction of IP protections is how effective its enforcement is. Fairness and education are voters – its how judges evaluate rounds and why schools fund debate DTD – it’s key to norm set and deter future abuse Neg theory is DTD - 1ARs control the direction of the debate because it determines what the 2NR has to go for – DTD allows us some leeway in the round by having some control in the direction Competing interps – Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation – it also collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm 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 D – its illogical for you to win for proving you were fair – outweighs since logic is a litmus test for other arguments
9/6/21
SEPTOCT-Trademarks CP
Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Parth Misra CP Text: Member States of the WTO ought to reduce intellectual property predictions for diabetes medicines except trademarks That solves the aff, their offense only deals with patents which drive up prices and undermine competition. Yes it’s competitive- WTO TRIPS agreement requires trademark protection Buckley 13 Buckley, Gillian J. (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine | IOM · Institute of Medicine (IOM), and Lawrence O. Gostin, eds. "Countering the problem of falsified and substandard drugs." (2013)./SJKS TRIPS requires World of public health” (Brant and Malpani, 2011, p. 23).
Trademarks are the best IP to combat counterfeiting- enforcement and remedies are much better than patents alone Konski 8 Antoinette Konski (Partner, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Practice Foley and Lardner LLP), IP Strategies to Combat Distribution of Counterfeit Drugs, BIOPROCESS INT’L, 1, 4 (2008)/SJKS Because trademarks seek swift resolution of the action.
TENS OF THOUSANDS DIE EACH YEAR AS THE RESULT OF FAKE DRUGS Magdun 21 Melanie Magdun (JD candidate, Indiana University of Law), Trademark Enforcement of Counterfeit Drugs: A Guardian of the Rich and Poor Alike, 9 Ind. J.L. and Soc. Equality 281 (2021)./SJKS There are more detected cases o will begin to attract additional counterfeiters.1
Counterfeit contraceptives don’t do their jobs and can lead to death Ossola 21 OSSOLA , ALEXANDRA. “The Fight against Fake Birth Control.” Popular Science, 26 Apr. 2021, https://www.popsci.com/article/science/fight-against-fake-birth-control/. As a traditionally Catholic often don’t know they’re fakes.