National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
1
Lexington AG
David Herrera
National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
4
Harker KB
David Dosch
Navigation
1
You
Me
St Marks
2
Westwood AY
James Stuckert
St Marks
4
Peninsula AB
Lindsey Williams
St Marks
5
Tays KM
Javier Navarrete
Strake Jesuit
2
Memorial DXu
Angela Zhong
Strake Jesuit
4
Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM
Allison Aldridge
Strake Jesuit
5
King CP
Connor Lindquist
Strake Jesuit
Octas
Lake Highland Prep PS
Andrew Qin, Joseph Georges, angela zhong
TFA State
1
SevLak Christopher Lee
Vincent Liu
TFA State
3
Memori Daniel Xu
Phoenix Pittman
TFA State
6
PlaEas Jay Namdhari
Chris Castillo
TFA State
Doubles
PlaEas Neel Kanamangala
Holden Bukowsky, Alexander Yoakum, Avery Wilson
Valley
1
Plano Independent Nathan Gong
Benjamin Morbeck
Valley
4
Loveless Academic Magnet Program Rhea Rastogi
Grant Brown
Valley
6
Rosemount Cierra Phillips
Manasi Singh
Tournament
Round
Report
Apple Valley
2
Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Julian Kuffour
1AC - China 1NC - Hospitals PIC Innovation DA Can't Spec Dedev Case 1AR - All 2NR - Innovation DA Case 2AR - Case
Apple Valley
5
Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Pratham Soni
1AC - Teachers 1NC - T-Unconditional Consult ICJ CP Innovation DA 1AR - All Consult CPs Bad Condo Bad 2NR - Consult CPs Bad Condo Bad T-Unconditional 2AR - T-Unconditional
Apple Valley
Doubles
Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Ben Waldman, Austin Broussard, Jeong-Wan Choi
1AC - Stock 1NC - Combo Shell Spikes K Case 1AR - All Must Have Advocacy Text Truth Testing 2NR - Combo Shell Spikes K Truth Testing Must Have Advocacy Text 2AR - Must Have Advocacy Text Combo Shell
Apple Valley
4
Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Joshua StPeter
1AC - Black Fem 1NC - Cap K Case 1AR - All 2NR - Cap K 2AR - Case Cap K
Barkley Forum
2
Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Yoyo Lei
1AC - Kant w Megaconstellations 1NC - Util Precision Ag DA Debris Clean Up CP Case 1AR - Case Precision Ag DA Debris Clean Up CP 2NR - Debris Clean Up CP Precision Ag DA 2AR - Case Precision Ag DA Debris Clean Up CP
Barkley Forum
4
Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: David Kilpatrick
1AC - Space Mining 1NC - Mining Good Kamooalewa PIC Case 1AR - All Condo PICs 2NR - Condo PICs Mining Good Kamooalewa PIC Case 2AR - Case Mining Good Kamooalewa PIC
Barkley Forum
6
Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Rishi Mukherjee
1AC - Capitalism 1NC - Space Elevators PIC No 1AR Theory Cap Good Case 1AR - All PICs 2NR - PICs Space Elevators PIC Case 2AR - Case Space Elevators PIC
California Invitational Berkeley Debate
1
Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
1AC - Multilateral Asteroid Mining 1NC - Mining DA T-Appropriation Unilateral Mining CP Korean DipCap DA Extra-T Case
1AC - Space Capitalism 1NC - Space-Based Solar Power PIC Asteroid Mining DA Util Case 1AR - All 2NR - Cap Good 2AR - Asteroid Mining DA Case
California Invitational Berkeley Debate
6
Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
1AC - Lunar Heritage 1NC - T-CCC Putin Lashout DA Moon Base CP Antineutrino Detectors CP Global ConCon CP 1AR - Case Condo Can't Deny 1AR Theory No RVIs Spec Status 2NR - Putin Lashout DA Underview Can't Deny 1AR Theory No RVIs 2AR - Can't Deny 1AR Theory No RVIs
Glenbrooks
1
Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
1AC - Indian Farmers 1NC - Democracy Bad Co2 Ag 1AR - All 2NR - Democracy Bad 2AR - All
Glenbrooks
4
Opponent: Homestead SL | Judge: Claudia Ribera
1AC - Beller 1NC - T-FW Legality PIK Case 1AR - All 2NR - Webb Case 2AR - Case Webb
Glenbrooks
5
Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Javier Navarrete
1AC - China 1NC - Anarcho-Blackness K Combo Shell Case 1AR - All Truth Testing 2NR - Combo Shell Truth Testing 2AR - Combo Shell
Grapevine Classic
2
Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jayanne Forrest
1AC - Indigenous Music 1NC - T Util Consult WHO CP Mis-disclosure Case 1AR - All 2NR - Util Consult WHO CP Mis-disclosure 2AR - Case T Mis-disclosure Consult WHO CP
Grapevine Classic
3
Opponent: Dulles VN | Judge: TJ Maher
1AC - Kant 1NC - Combo Shell Case 1AR - Check violation in CX Shell All 2NR - Combo Shell Check violation in CX Shell 2AR - Check violation in CX Shell
Grapevine Classic
5
Opponent: McNeil | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo
1AC - Biopiracy 1NC - Util Spec Tribal Influence Consult WHO CP Climate Patents DA Case 1AR - All Consult CPs Bad 2NR - Consult WHO CP 2AR - Case Consult WHO CP
Grapevine Classic
Triples
Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Joseph Georges
1AC - Evergreening 1NC - Climate Patents DA Single Payer CP Weed PIC Case 1AR - All 2NR - Weed PIC Case 2AR - Case Weed PIC
Greenhill
2
Opponent: Harker AA | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy
1AC - EU 1NC - T-WTO Scientist CP SetCol Case 1AR - All 2NR - Scientist CP Dedev Case 2AR - All
Greenhill
3
Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Kartikeya Kotamraju
1AC - Evergreening 1NC - Infrastructure DA Obviousness CP Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Condo Infrastructure DA Case 2AR - Case Infrastructure DA
Greenhill
5
Opponent: Dougherty Valley AR | Judge: Austin Broussard
1AC - TRIPS 1NC - T-Reduce Climate Patents DA Distribution CP Case 1AR - All Condo PICs 2NR - Climate Patents DA Distribution CP Case 2AR - Condo
Lexington
1
Opponent: Stuyvesant LC | Judge: Zoheb Nensey
1AC - Space Mining 1NC - OST Credibility DA Innovation DA ILaw Regs CP Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Condo Innovation DA Case 2AR - Case Innovation DA
Lexington
4
Opponent: Acton-Boxborough ALi | Judge: TJ Maher
1AC - Cap Aff 1NC - T-FW Cap Good 1AR - All 2NR - Cap Good 2AR - Case
Lexington
5
Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Eric He
1AC - Debris 1NC - PLA DA Market Share Liability CP Global ConCon CP Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Condo PLA DA Case 2AR - Condo Case
Longhorn Classic
1
Opponent: Dulles Raaiqa Zahid | Judge: Nathan Smith
1AC - Kant 1NC - Anchro-Blackness K 1AR - All 2NR - Anchro-Blackness K Ideal Theory Bad 2AR All
Longhorn Classic
3
Opponent: Memorial Ryan Stanicic | Judge: Breigh Plat
1AC - Whole-Res 1NC - Air Traffic PIC CSA Democracy Good Case 1AR - All 2NR - CSA Air Traffic PIC Case 2AR - All
Longhorn Classic
6
Opponent: American Heritage Broward Mason Cheng | Judge: Joseph Georges
Opponent: Dulles Tommy Yu | Judge: Austin Broussard, Truman Le, Javier Navarrete
1AC - Agonism 1NC - Combo Shell New Affs Bad Case 1AR - All Truth Testing Multiple Shells No RVIs Bad 2NR - Combo Shell Truth Testing 2AR - Truth Testing
Meadows
1
Opponent: Canyon Crest ED | Judge: TJ Maher
1AC - WTO 1NC - Climate Patents DA T-Reduce Spec IP Plan Flaw CP 1AR - All 2NR - T-Reduce 2AR - T-Reduce
Meadows
3
Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Rafael Sanchez
1AC - Vaccine Imperialism 1NC - Financing CP Climate Patents DA WTO Collapse DA Util Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Condo Climate Patents 2AR - Case Climate Patents
Meadows
5
Opponent: Canyon Crest SZ | Judge: Gordon Krauss
1AC - Pandemics 1NC - Climate Patents DA Distribution CP China Rise DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - Climate Patents DA Case
National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
1
Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
1AC - Mega-constellations 1NC - T-Appropriation Extra-T Hypersonics DA Advantage CP CSA Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Extra-T Hypersonics DA Case 2AR - Condo
National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
4
Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: David Dosch
1AC - China 1NC - China Mining DA China Co-op CP T-Private BRI DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - China Co-op CP Case 2AR - China Co-op CP
St Marks
2
Opponent: Westwood AY | Judge: James Stuckert
1AC - Evergreening 1NC - AMR PIC Climate Patents DA Case 1AR - All 2NR - AMR PIC Case 2AR - Case AMR PIC
St Marks
4
Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Lindsey Williams
1AC - US-EU Relations 1NC - T-WTO Nebel T Climate Patents DA China Rise Good Case 1AR - All 2NR - Climate Patents China Rise Good Case 2AR - Case Climate Patents
St Marks
5
Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Javier Navarrete
1AC - Product Hopping 1NC - New Affs Bad Combo Shell Case 1AR - All Out of Round Violations Bad 2NR - Combo Shell Case 2AR - Case Out of Round Violations Bad Combo Shell
Strake Jesuit
2
Opponent: Memorial DXu | Judge: Angela Zhong
1AC - Kant 1NC - Global Con Con CP Util Innovation DA Case 1AR - All Condo 2NR - Condo Global Con Con CP Util 2AR - Condo
Strake Jesuit
4
Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Allison Aldridge
1AC - Mollow 1NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1AR - All 2NR - Cap K Case 2AR - Case Cap K
Strake Jesuit
5
Opponent: King CP | Judge: Connor Lindquist
1AC - Mollow 1NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1AR - All 2NR - Cap K Case 2AR - Case Cap K
Strake Jesuit
Octas
Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Andrew Qin, Joseph Georges, angela zhong
1AC - I-Law 1NC - Global ConCon Util NC Presumption Permissibility Negate Aff Theory Combo Shell 1AR - All 2NR - Aff Theory Combo Shell 2AR - Case Aff Theory Combo Shell
TFA State
1
Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
1AC - Populism 1NC - 30 Speaks Spike Solution Journalism PIC T-CCC Reject Calc Indicts Extinction First Spec Bad Theory Hedge Case 1AR - All 2NR - T-CCC 2AR - T-CCC
TFA State
3
Opponent: Memori Daniel Xu | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
1AC - Pragmatism 1NC - Combo Shell 1 Util Transparency CP Solution Journalism PIC Theory Hedge Case 1AR - All AFC Can't Say No RVIs and No 1AR Theory 2NR - All 2AR - Pragmatism Util
TFA State
6
Opponent: PlaEas Jay Namdhari | Judge: Chris Castillo
1AC - Race War 1NC - Race War PIK Redaction PIK Cap K Case 1AR - All 2NR - Redaction PIK Case 2AR - All
TFA State
Doubles
Opponent: PlaEas Neel Kanamangala | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Alexander Yoakum, Avery Wilson
1AC - Hair Down 1NC - Cap K T-FW Case 1AR - All 2NR - T-FW Cap K Case 2AR - Case Cap K
Valley
1
Opponent: Plano Independent Nathan Gong | Judge: Benjamin Morbeck
1AC - Evergreening 1NC - Infrastructure Obviousness Case 1AR - All 2NR - Obviousness Case 2AR - Case Obviousness
Valley
4
Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program Rhea Rastogi | Judge: Grant Brown
1AC - Post-Colonial Feminism 1NC - Scientist CP Util T-Framework Case 1AR - All Util IVI 2NR - T-Framework Case 2AR - Case T-Framework
1AC - DTCPA 1NC - Climate Patents DA AMR DA Single-Payer CP Case 1AR - All 2NR - Climate Patents DA Single-Payer CP Case 2AR - All
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0 - Contact Info
Tournament: Contact Info | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Hi, I'm Miller. Feel free to ask me any questions. Email: millerlroberts@gmail.com FB: Miller Roberts Phone: 512-293-7884
9/3/21
0 - Navigation
Tournament: Navigation | Round: 1 | Opponent: You | Judge: Me 0 - Important Stuff 1 - Theory Interps 2 - K Generics 3 - Other Generics (fw, cp, etc.) SeptOct - September/October Topic NovDec - November/December Topic JanFeb - January/February Topic MarApr - March/April Topic
9/3/21
1 - Th - Combo Shell 1
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Javier Navarrete Interp: Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and Aff Fairness issues come before NC arguments. Violation – Their UV 1 Standards – a Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that’s DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard automatically comes before any 1nc standard since aff fairness comes first, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I cant weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest fairness adv. So this means that as long as they read a shell I violate in the 1ar I will lose. Independently controls the IL to clash because I can’t clash if I always lose – strongest IL to education because it’s the only form of unique education we get from debate 2 Paradigm issues – a Vote neg on substance – a I was so skewed on substance so that I couldn’t win it b I couldn’t engage in the aff in the first place b Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the IL to education because you don’t learn from an already skewed round. c 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 d 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 e Norming outweighs – a constitutivism – it’s the intrinsic purpose of theory b magnitude – it’s the only out of round impact which link turns their arguments because they assume a good model of debate f No RVIs – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe g No cross-apps, overviews, or meta theory – its how tricky debaters get away with abuse, force them to justify their abuse.
10/19/21
1 - Th - Combo Shell 1 v2
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Ben Waldman, Austin Broussard, Jeong-Wan Choi Interp: Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and Aff theory issues come before NC arguments.
Violation – 5 point of their UV 1 Standards –
a Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that’s DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard automatically comes before any 1nc standard since aff fairness comes first, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I cant weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest fairness adv. So this means that as long as they read a shell I violate in the 1ar I will lose. Independently controls the I/L to clash because I can’t clash if I always lose – strongest IL to education because it’s the only form of unique education we get from debate
2 Paradigm issues – a Vote neg on substance – a I was so skewed on substance so that I couldn’t win it b I couldn’t engage in the aff in the first place
b Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the IL to education because you don’t learn from an already skewed round.
c DTD – a deters future abuse b my strat has already been skewed so it’s the only way to rectify the abuse
d 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
e Norming outweighs – a constitutivism – it’s the intrinsic purpose of theory b magnitude – it’s the only out of round impact which link turns their arguments because they assume a good model of debate
f No RVIs – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe
g No cross-apps, overviews, or meta theory – its how tricky debaters get away with abuse, force them to justify their abuse.
h Answering the spike doesn’t solve – a it’s a matter of competing interps so possible in round responses doesn’t disprove the shell
11/7/21
1 - Th - Combo Shell 1 v3
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Dulles Tommy Yu | Judge: Austin Broussard, Truman Le, Javier Navarrete
Theory
Interpretation – Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and Aff theory first.
Violation – Their UV – 5 point
1~ Standards –
a~ Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that's DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard automatically comes before any 1NC standard since aff theory comes first, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I can't weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest theory layer. So, if they read a shell that I violate in the 1AR I will lose because they have the highest layer, and I can't get offense on that layer. Winning a CI on the 1AR shell doesn't disprove our abuse story – any risk of offense on the highest layer under competing interps and a 3-minute 2AR on a shell makes it impossible to negate.
b~ Clash – I can't clash if I always lose, and I can't offensively engage on the highest layer which destroys theoretical clash – strongest I/L to education because it's the only form of unique education we get from debate.
2~ Paradigm issues –
a~ Vote neg on substance – a~ I was so skewed on substance so that I couldn't win it b~ I couldn't engage in the aff in the first place
b~ Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the I/L to education because you don't learn from an already skewed round.
c~ DTD – a~ deters future abuse b~ my strat has already been skewed so it's the only way to rectify the abuse
d~ Competing interps – a~ reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation b~ reasonability collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm
e~ Norming outweighs – a~ constitutivism – it's the intrinsic purpose of theory b~ magnitude – it's the only out of round impact which link turns their arguments because they assume a good model of debate
f~ No RVIs – a~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, b~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and c~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.
g~ No cross-apps, overviews, or meta theory – it's how tricky debaters get away with abuse, force them to justify a CI.
h~ Answering the spike doesn't solve – it's a matter of norming so possible in round responses doesn't disprove the shell
12/14/21
1 - Th - Combo Shell 1 v4
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memori Daniel Xu | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
Theory
Interpretation – Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and Aff theory first.
Violation – Their UV
1~ Standards –
a~ Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that's DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard automatically comes before any 1NC standard since aff theory comes first, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I can't weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest theory layer. So, if they read a shell that I violate in the 1AR I will lose because they have the highest layer, and I can't get offense on that layer.
Paradigm issues –
Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the I/L to education because you don't learn from an already skewed round.
DTD – a~ deters future abuse b~ my strat has already been skewed so it's the only way to rectify the abuse
Competing interps – a~ reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation b~ reasonability collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm
No RVIs – a~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, b~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and c~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive. No time skew – not unique to theory, any other 2NR collapses split the 2AR. No Reciprocity – topicality doesn't justify an RVI, and you get things like 1AC theory and minor balances in debate are inevitable
3/11/22
1 - Th - Combo Shell 2
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Javier Navarrete
Theory
Interp: Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and eval 1AC theory after the 1AC.
Violation – their UV
1~ Standards –
a~ Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that's DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard outweighs and is evaluated before the NC, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I cant weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest fairness adv. So this means that as long as they read a shell I violate in the 1ar I will lose. I also lose after the 1AC spikes because they are DTD.
Independently controls the I/L to clash because I can't clash if I always lose – strongest IL to education because it's the only form of unique education we get from debate
2~ Paradigm issues –
a~ Vote neg on substance – a~ I was so skewed on substance so that I couldn't win it b~ I couldn't engage in the aff in the first place
b~ Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the IL to education because you don't learn from an already skewed round.
c~ DTD – a~ deters future abuse b~ my strat has already been skewed so it's the only way to rectify the abuse
d~ 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
e~ Norming outweighs – a~ constitutivism – it's the intrinsic purpose of theory b~ magnitude – it's the only out of round impact which link turns their arguments because they assume a good model of debate
f~ No RVIs – Going all in on theory kills substance education which outweighs on timeframe
g~ No cross-apps, overviews, or meta theory – its how tricky debaters get away with abuse, force them to justify their abuse.
h~ Answering the spike doesn't solve – a~ it's a matter of competing interps so possible in round responses doesn't disprove the shell
11/21/21
1 - Th - Combo Shell 3
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Andrew Qin, Joseph Georges, angela zhong
4
Theory
Interpretation – Debaters may not read that aff theory is drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps and Aff theory first, and no new 2NR paradigm issues. Violation – Their UV 1~ Standards – a~ Infinite Abuse - They can read a theory shell that's DTD/no RVI/CI that means their standard automatically comes before any 1NC standard since aff theory comes first, it also means it comes as the highest layer because I can't weigh between other shells because the aff has the highest theory layer. So, if they read a shell that I violate in the 1AR I will lose because they have the highest layer, and I can't get offense on that layer. They can make new 1AR paradigm issues like eval the theory debate after the 1AR and I auto-lose because I don't get new paradigm issues. b~ Clash – I can't clash if I always lose, and I can't offensively engage on the highest layer which destroys theoretical clash – strongest I/L to education because it's the only form of unique education we get from debate.
2~ Paradigm issues –
a~ Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the I/L to education because you don't learn from an already skewed round.
b~ DTD – a~ deters future abuse b~ my strat has already been skewed so it's the only way to rectify the abuse
c~ Competing interps – a~ reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation b~ reasonability collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm
d~ Norming outweighs – a~ constitutivism – it's the intrinsic purpose of theory b~ magnitude – it's the only out of round impact which link turns their arguments because they assume a good model of debate
12/26/21
1 - Th - Counter Solvency Advocate
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial Ryan Stanicic | Judge: Breigh Plat
2
Theory
A. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than "A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike," then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy. (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: They defend governments and didn't give a CSA
C. Standards:
1. Fairness – This is a litmus test to determining whether your aff is fair –
a) Ground – 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
b) Limits – Operating outside the bounds of the general maxim places an infinite research burden, narrowing the plans to ones with counter-solvency advocates ensures good substantive engagement since it guarantees both sides, and narrows out trivially true advocacies.
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.
12/4/21
1 - Th - Counter Solvency Advocate v2
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
Theory
Interp: If the affirmative defends anything other than "The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust", they must provide a counter solvency advocate.
Violation: They didn't
Prefer
1. Limits – there are infinite things you could which pushes you to uncontestable arguments. Even if your interp, the only way to verify if it's fair is proof of counter-arguments.
2. Shiftiness- CSA conceptualizes what their advocacy is and how it's implemented. Ambiguous affs we don't know about can't delink if they delineate these things.
3. Research – Forces the aff to go to the other side of the library and contest their own view points and encourages more in-depth answers since I can find responses.
4/9/22
1 - Th - Disclose Changes
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Mason Cheng | Judge: Joseph Georges
1
Theory
Interp: The affirmative debaters must tell the negative debater what changes are in the aff
Violation: screenshots
Standards
A~ Pre round prep- Hiding changes mean that pre round neg prep was skewed—4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update our answers to the aff
B~ academic integrity – disclosing changes is key to ensure that new evidence isn't miscut and we have an idea of what analytics will look like
b~ Fairness – its constitutive to debate as competitive activity that requires objective evaluation. Controls the I/L to education because you don't learn from an already skewed round.
c~ DTD – a~ deters future abuse b~ my strat has already been skewed so it's the only way to rectify the abuse
d~ Competing interps – a~ reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation b~ reasonability collapses since brightlines operate on an offense-defense paradigm
f~ No RVIs – a~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, b~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and c~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.
12/14/21
1 - Th - New Affs Bad
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Javier Navarrete Interp: Debaters must disclose affirmative advocacy texts and advantage areas thirty minutes before round if they haven’t read the aff before. Violation: screenshots Standards: 1 Clash- Not disclosing incentivizes surprise tactics and poorly refined positions that rely on artificial and vague negative engagement to win debates. 2 Shiftiness- Not knowing enough about the affirmative coming into round incentivizes 1ar shiftiness about what the aff is and what their framework/advocacy entails.
10/19/21
1 - Th - No 1AR Theory
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Rishi Mukherjee
Theory
No 1AR Theory—
1~ The 2NR must overcover theory since they get 3 minute 2ar collapse on one of the layers and persuasiveness advantage of a 3 minute 2ar
2~ Responses to my counter interp will be new which means 1ar theory necessitates intervention— outweighs because it makes the decision arbitrary
3~ Jurisdiction- If the judge can't resolve an argument they don't have the jurisdiction to vote on it because there is a risk of an incorrect decision
4~ Magnitude- resolvability means judge intervention which is worse than a shell with reasonability on it
1/29/22
1 - Th - Reject Calc Indicts Extinction First Spec Bad
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
Theory
Interp: The affirmative debater may not say use no calc indicts and extinction first, and specify the resolution.
Violation: that's their FW and they spec util
Abuse Story: the neg can never win the FW debate since even if I win the NC I lose to extinction first, can't say that if I win my FW then they say all attacks are calc indicts, and I can't win substantively since they can just cherrypick one really good extinction scenario that I can't contest
Strat Skew: Kills negative engagement on the framework level by creating a 3 to 1 structural skew which o/ws A~ Structural abuse outweighs since better debating can always combat substantive abuse but unequal burdens makes procedural evaluation skewed. B~ They'll say that we can just line-by-line their arguments but that doesn't solve since it makes it a no-risk issue since they can still win under util + extinction first
Clash: it kills clash since negs are disincentivized from contesting the aff FW which A~ kills phil ed which o/ws since it's the only unique ed to LD B~ topic ed is nonunique since topic lit includes more than just util literature. C~ meeting any of the planks solves your interp because it allows for you to read your aff while still giving the neg the ability to engage.
3/10/22
1 - Th - TFW
Tournament: Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program Rhea Rastogi | Judge: Grant Brown Interp – the 1AC may not get offense external to the implementation of the Plan – simply reading the Aff or affirming a deconstruction of debate is not sufficient for an affirmative ballot Resolved means a policy Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. “Resolved”. 1964. Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. Violation – If they go for offense external to the plans implementation including debate bad, form content, HOM as an indict to the form of the da, etc At best they’re Extra-T, which is a voter for Limits, or Effects-T which is worse, since any small aff can spill up to the res. Prefer – 1 Presumption – All the Aff does is affirm an already existing movement by the masses and an ideological orientation that leads to no material action which isn’t a distinct differential form the Status Quo, 2 Clash – We can’t engage you because you’ll just no link all our Disads, Kritiks, turns etc. by re-interpreting the 1AC since you’re not tied to any one action – destroys ability for activism since activist K v K debates rely on debates over methodologies which the Aff decks, 3 Competitive equity – debate is a competitive game which loses meaning without substantive constraints- Everybody comes to debate for different reasons, but the fact that the other team is here and has presented a 1ac means they have bought into the game, and concedes the authority of fairness, or the judge should hack against you. 5 Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive
Our Interpretation is the affirmative should instrumentally defend the resolution – hold the line, CX and the 1AC prove there's no I-meet – anything new in the 1AR is either extra-T since it includes the non-topical parts of the Aff or effects-T since it's a future result of the advocacy which both link to our offense. They should only get offense from a government legalizing a right to strike.
Government
Oxford Lexico. Definition of government in English. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/government The governing body of a nation, state, or community. 'an agency of the federal government'
Recognize
Oxford Lexico. Definition of recognize in English. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/recognize Acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of. 'the defense is recognized in Mexican law'
Resolved requires policy action
Louisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and AND Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1)
~2~ Standards to Prefer:
First - Fairness – radically re-contextualizing the resolution lets them defend any method tangentially related to the topic exploding Limits, which erases neg ground via perms and renders research burdens untenable by eviscerating predictable limits. Procedural questions come first – debate is a game and it makes no sense to skew a competitive activity as it requires effective negation which incentivizes argument refinement, but skewed burdens deck pedagogical engagement.
Second - Clash – picking any grounds for debate precludes the only common point of engagement, which obviates preround research and incentivizes retreat from controversy by eliminating any effective clash. Only the process of negation distinguishes debate and discussion by necessitating iterative testing and effective engagement, but an absence of constant refinement dooms revolutionary potential.
TVA – ~Affirm a right to strike to reduce the digital colonization of information to feed the World Computer~ right to strike for tech workers which allows them to collapse the grid and the world computer right to strike read a whole res aff with adv about strikes being key to socialist organization
TVA is terminal defense – proves our models aren't mutually exclusive - any response to the substance of the TVA is offense for us because it proves our model allows for clear contestation. Form over Content doesn't take it out since we don't restrict Form, just the substantive burden of the Aff.
Prefer Competing Interpretations – reasonability is arbitrary and causes a race to the bottom. This means reject Aff Impact Turns predicated on their theory since we weren't able to adequately prepare for it.
11/21/21
1 - Th - TFW v3
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: 4 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Allison Aldridge
TFW
Interp: The affirmative may not garner offense external to the hypothetical implementation that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
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 don't defend the topic – CX proves. 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 d) application—your model only indicts how fairness has been applied not that it's intrinsically bad—their model would justify exclusion.
2~ Switch Side Debate—they can read it as a K against affirmatives—forces debaters to consider issues from multiple perspectives. Non-topical affs allow individuals to establish their own metrics for what they want to debate leading to dogmatism.
3~ Deliberative clash is crucial to overcoming entrenched ableist ideology and can rectify power asymmetries to create egalitarianism.
Amber Knight 15, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University, "Democratizing Disability: Achieving Inclusion (without Assimilation) through "Participatory Parity"," Hypatia vol. 30, no. 1 (Winter '15) There is ample evidence to suggest that able-bodied people simply miss the mark AND , and the political community will never know what it is denying itself.
No impact turns – T is just like a disad or K – just like the cap k that says non-topical affs reinforce capitalism – impositions are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder – every link says the aff did something wrong and theres a version of the aff that wouldn't have linked
Interp: The affirmative may not garner offense external to the hypothetical implementation that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
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 don't defend the topic – CX proves. 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 d) application—your model only indicts how fairness has been applied not that it's intrinsically bad—their model would justify exclusion.
2~ Switch Side Debate—they can read it as a K against affirmatives—forces debaters to consider issues from multiple perspectives. Non-topical affs allow individuals to establish their own metrics for what they want to debate leading to dogmatism.
TVA – Defend a whole-res aff that says private appropriation is capitalist
No impact turns – T is just like a disad or K – just like the cap k that says non-topical affs reinforce capitalism – impositions are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder – every link says the aff did something wrong and theres a version of the aff that wouldn't have linked
1/15/22
1 - Th - TFW v5
Tournament: TFA State | Round: Doubles | Opponent: PlaEas Neel Kanamangala | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Alexander Yoakum, Avery Wilson
TFW
Interp: The affirmative may not garner offense external to the hypothetical implementation that in a democracy a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy
Violation: they don't defend the topic – cx proves. 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
2~ Switch Side Debate—they can read it as a K against affirmatives—forces debaters to consider issues from multiple perspectives. Non-topical affs allow individuals to establish their own metrics for what they want to debate leading to dogmatism.
No impact turns – T is just like a disad or K – just like the cap k that says non-topical affs reinforce capitalism – impositions are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder – every link says the aff did something wrong and theres a version of the aff that wouldn't have linked
3/12/22
1 - Th - Theory Hedge
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
Theory
No 1AR Theory—-
1~ The 2NR must overcover theory since they get 3 minute 2ar collapse on one of the layers and persuasiveness advantage of a 3 minute 2ar
2~ Responses to my counter interp will be new which means 1ar theory necessitates intervention—-outweighs because it makes the decision arbitrary
3~ I only have one chance to respond after it is introduced while they have two chances
4~ Reject infinite abuse claims—a~ spikes solve—there are only so many theoretical issues anyway, b~ infinite abuse doesn't exist since there are a finite number of rounds, c~ if I win I can't engage in 1AR theory then you could never check infinite abuse since we can't use your shells to determine what's abusive d. Functional limits solves – I only have 7 minutes so I can't be infinitely abusive
3/10/22
1 - Th - Thirty Speaks
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
Speaks
Give me 30 speaks—prevents arbitrary biases from seeping into the decision.
3/10/22
2 - K - Capitalism v Afropessimism
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Joshua StPeter Their basic frame for politics reconfirms the failures of the Left, turning debate into a Vampires’ Castle where the propagation of guilt and cycles of pseudo-activity overcome meaningful theorizing and political change – this destroys resistance to capitalism. Fisher 13 (Mark Fisher, commissioning editor at Zer0 Books, programme Leader of the MA in Aural and Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London, lecturer at the University of East London, “Exiting the Vampire Castle,” The North Star, November 22, 2013) Inside the Vampires’ Castle The first configuration is what I came to call the Vampires’ Castle. The Vampires’ Castle specialises in propagating guilt. It is driven by a priest’s desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant’s desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster’s desire to be one of the in-crowd. The danger in attacking the Vampires’ Castle is that it can look as if – and it will do everything it can to reinforce this thought – that one is also attacking the struggles against racism, sexism, heterosexism. But, far from being the only legitimate expression of such struggles, the Vampires’ Castle is best understood as a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of these movements. The Vampires’ Castle was born the moment when the struggle not to be defined by identitarian categories became the quest to have ‘identities’ recognised by a bourgeois big Other. The privilege I certainly enjoy as a white male consists in part in my not being aware of my ethnicity and my gender, and it is a sobering and revelatory experience to occasionally be made aware of these blind-spots. But, rather than seeking a world in which everyone achieves freedom from identitarian classification, the Vampires’ Castle seeks to corral people back into identi-camps, where they are forever defined in the terms set by dominant power, crippled by self-consciousness and isolated by a logic of solipsism which insists that we cannot understand one another unless we belong to the same identity group. I’ve noticed a fascinating magical inversion projection-disavowal mechanism whereby the sheer mention of class is now automatically treated as if that means one is trying to downgrade the importance of race and gender. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, as the Vampires’ Castle uses an ultimately liberal understanding of race and gender to obfuscate class. In all of the absurd and traumatic twitterstorms about privilege earlier this year it was noticeable that the discussion of class privilege was entirely absent. The task, as ever, remains the articulation of class, gender and race – but the founding move of the Vampires’ Castle is the dis-articulation of class from other categories. The problem that the Vampires’ Castle was set up to solve is this: how do you hold immense wealth and power while also appearing as a victim, marginal and oppositional? The solution was already there – in the Christian Church. So the VC has recourse to all the infernal strategies, dark pathologies and psychological torture instruments Christianity invented, and which Nietzsche described in The Genealogy of Morals. This priesthood of bad conscience, this nest of pious guilt-mongers, is exactly what Nietzsche predicted when he said that something worse than Christianity was already on the way. Now, here it is … The Vampires’ Castle feeds on the energy and anxieties and vulnerabilities of young students, but most of all it lives by converting the suffering of particular groups – the more ‘marginal’ the better – into academic capital. The most lauded figures in the Vampires’ Castle are those who have spotted a new market in suffering – those who can find a group more oppressed and subjugated than any previously exploited will find themselves promoted through the ranks very quickly. The first law of the Vampires’ Castle is: individualise and privatise everything. While in theory it claims to be in favour of structural critique, in practice it never focuses on anything except individual behaviour. Some of these working class types are not terribly well brought up, and can be very rude at times. Remember: condemning individuals is always more important than paying attention to impersonal structures. The actual ruling class propagates ideologies of individualism, while tending to act as a class. (Many of what we call ‘conspiracies’ are the ruling class showing class solidarity.) The VC, as dupe-servants of the ruling class, does the opposite: it pays lip service to ‘solidarity’ and ‘collectivity’, while always acting as if the individualist categories imposed by power really hold. Because they are petit-bourgeois to the core, the members of the Vampires’ Castle are intensely competitive, but this is repressed in the passive aggressive manner typical of the bourgeoisie. What holds them together is not solidarity, but mutual fear – the fear that they will be the next one to be outed, exposed, condemned. The second law of the Vampires’ Castle is: make thought and action appear very, very difficult. There must be no lightness, and certainly no humour. Humour isn’t serious, by definition, right? Thought is hard work, for people with posh voices and furrowed brows. Where there is confidence, introduce scepticism. Say: don’t be hasty, we have to think more deeply about this. Remember: having convictions is oppressive, and might lead to gulags. The third law of the Vampires’ Castle is: propagate as much guilt as you can. The more guilt the better. People must feel bad: it is a sign that they understand the gravity of things. It’s OK to be class-privileged if you feel guilty about privilege and make others in a subordinate class position to you feel guilty too. You do some good works for the poor, too, right? The fourth law of the Vampires’ Castle is: essentialize. While fluidity of identity, pluarity and multiplicity are always claimed on behalf of the VC members – partly to cover up their own invariably wealthy, privileged or bourgeois-assimilationist background – the enemy is always to be essentialized. Since the desires animating the VC are in large part priests’ desires to excommunicate and condemn, there has to be a strong distinction between Good and Evil, with the latter essentialized. Notice the tactics. X has made a remark/ has behaved in a particular way – these remarks/ this behaviour might be construed as transphobic/ sexist etc. So far, OK. But it’s the next move which is the kicker. X then becomes defined as a transphobe/ sexist etc. Their whole identity becomes defined by one ill-judged remark or behavioural slip. Once the VC has mustered its witch-hunt, the victim (often from a working class background, and not schooled in the passive aggressive etiquette of the bourgeoisie) can reliably be goaded into losing their temper, further securing their position as pariah/ latest to be consumed in feeding frenzy. The fifth law of the Vampires’ Castle: think like a liberal (because you are one). The VC’s work of constantly stoking up reactive outrage consists of endlessly pointing out the screamingly obvious: capital behaves like capital (it’s not very nice!), repressive state apparatuses are repressive. We must protest! Neo-anarchy in the UK The second libidinal formation is neo-anarchism. By neo-anarchists I definitely do not mean anarchists or syndicalists involved in actual workplace organisation, such as the Solidarity Federation. I mean, rather, those who identify as anarchists but whose involvement in politics extends little beyond student protests and occupations, and commenting on Twitter. Like the denizens of the Vampires’ Castle, neo-anarchists usually come from a petit-bourgeois background, if not from somewhere even more class-privileged. They are also overwhelmingly young: in their twenties or at most their early thirties, and what informs the neo-anarchist position is a narrow historical horizon. Neo-anarchists have experienced nothing but capitalist realism. By the time the neo-anarchists had come to political consciousness – and many of them have come to political consciousness remarkably recently, given the level of bullish swagger they sometimes display – the Labour Party had become a Blairite shell, implementing neo-liberalism with a small dose of social justice on the side. But the problem with neo-anarchism is that it unthinkingly reflects this historical moment rather than offering any escape from it. It forgets, or perhaps is genuinely unaware of, the Labour Party’s role in nationalising major industries and utilities or founding the National Health Service. Neo-anarchists will assert that ‘parliamentary politics never changed anything’, or the ‘Labour Party was always useless’ while attending protests about the NHS, or retweeting complaints about the dismantling of what remains of the welfare state. There’s a strange implicit rule here: it’s OK to protest against what parliament has done, but it’s not alright to enter into parliament or the mass media to attempt to engineer change from there. Mainstream media is to be disdained, but BBC Question Time is to be watched and moaned about on Twitter. Purism shades into fatalism; better not to be in any way tainted by the corruption of the mainstream, better to uselessly ‘resist’ than to risk getting your hands dirty. It’s not surprising, then, that so many neo-anarchists come across as depressed. This depression is no doubt reinforced by the anxieties of postgraduate life, since, like the Vampires’ Castle, neo-anarchism has its natural home in universities, and is usually propagated by those studying for postgraduate qualifications, or those who have recently graduated from such study. What is to be done? Why have these two configurations come to the fore? The first reason is that they have been allowed to prosper by capital because they serve its interests. Capital subdued the organised working class by decomposing class consciousness, viciously subjugating trade unions while seducing ‘hard working families’ into identifying with their own narrowly defined interests instead of the interests of the wider class; but why would capital be concerned about a ‘left’ that replaces class politics with a moralising individualism, and that, far from building solidarity, spreads fear and insecurity? The second reason is what Jodi Dean has called communicative capitalism. It might have been possible to ignore the Vampires’ Castle and the neo-anarchists if it weren’t for capitalist cyberspace. The VC’s pious moralising has been a feature of a certain ‘left’ for many years – but, if one wasn’t a member of this particular church, its sermons could be avoided. Social media means that this is no longer the case, and there is little protection from the psychic pathologies propagated by these discourses. So what can we do now? First of all, it is imperative to reject identitarianism, and to recognise that there are no identities, only desires, interests and identifications. Part of the importance of the British Cultural Studies project – as revealed so powerfully and so movingly in John Akomfrah’s installation The Unfinished Conversation (currently in Tate Britain) and his film The Stuart Hall Project – was to have resisted identitarian essentialism. Instead of freezing people into chains of already-existing equivalences, the point was to treat any articulation as provisional and plastic. New articulations can always be created. No-one is essentially anything. Sadly, the right act on this insight more effectively than the left does. The bourgeois-identitarian left knows how to propagate guilt and conduct a witch hunt, but it doesn’t know how to make converts. But that, after all, is not the point. The aim is not to popularise a leftist position, or to win people over to it, but to remain in a position of elite superiority, but now with class superiority redoubled by moral superiority too. ‘How dare you talk – it’s we who speak for those who suffer!’ But the rejection of identitarianism can only be achieved by the re-assertion of class. A left that does not have class at its core can only be a liberal pressure group. Class consciousness is always double: it involves a simultaneous knowledge of the way in which class frames and shapes all experience, and a knowledge of the particular position that we occupy in the class structure. It must be remembered that the aim of our struggle is not recognition by the bourgeoisie, nor even the destruction of the bourgeoisie itself. It is the class structure – a structure that wounds everyone, even those who materially profit from it – that must be destroyed. The interests of the working class are the interests of all; the interests of the bourgeoisie are the interests of capital, which are the interests of no-one. Our struggle must be towards the construction of a new and surprising world, not the preservation of identities shaped and distorted by capital. If this seems like a forbidding and daunting task, it is. But we can start to engage in many prefigurative activities right now. Actually, such activities would go beyond pre-figuration – they could start a virtuous cycle, a self-fulfilling prophecy in which bourgeois modes of subjectivity are dismantled and a new universality starts to build itself. We need to learn, or re-learn, how to build comradeship and solidarity instead of doing capital’s work for it by condemning and abusing each other. This doesn’t mean, of course, that we must always agree – on the contrary, we must create conditions where disagreement can take place without fear of exclusion and excommunication. We need to think very strategically about how to use social media – always remembering that, despite the egalitarianism claimed for social media by capital’s libidinal engineers, that this is currently an enemy territory, dedicated to the reproduction of capital. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t occupy the terrain and start to use it for the purposes of producing class consciousness. We must break out of the ‘debate’ that communicative capitalism in which capital is endlessly cajoling us to participate in, and remember that we are involved in a class struggle. The goal is not to ‘be’ an activist, but to aid the working class to activate – Their investment in sociality and endurance represents a disinvesment from the present, papering over austerity, and reinvest in communal forms that harness and displaces psychologically affective energies in destructive ways. Fax 16 Joanna Fax, PhD in English and Postdoctoral Fellow @ Program in Writing and Communication, Rice University. Sexual Deregulation: Reading U.S. Subjects of Affective Labor from the Early Cold War to the Neoliberal Era”, p. 119-124, 134-136)TR Desert of the Heart is also a novel about social reproduction from a lesbian standpoint that extends the feminist argument for viewing nonwage care work as a site of surplus accumulation. My reading, which contextualizes lesbian reproduction within the story’s wider setting of Reno as a town built from the casino business, attends to the novel’s depictions of the unmet needs created the wake of enterprise. As a worker, Ann is vital to Reno’s casino economy. Ann’s caring labor inside and outside of Frank’s Club where she works and her search for kinship within this framework reveal her reproduction as worker and as lesbian to be both a sign of and supplement to Reno’s deregulated economy. My analysis of lesbian social reproduction extends the feminist insight into the private family’s intimate relation to the market. Kathi Weeks elaborates the arguments of Maria Dalla Costa and Selma James on this point: “the ideology of the family performs a kind of mopping-up function, enabling us to accept the legitimacy of the wage system despite its shortcomings by encouraging us to imagine that it can provide for those capable of living up to its norms of family form and responsibility” (Weeks The Problem with Work 121). Neoliberal deregulation taps into cultural aspirations toward nonconventional, nonheteronormative kinship in ways that re-code and mask its relation to capital’s requirement for supplemental, devalued affective labor. As the casino’s deregulated enterprise pulls every strand of Reno’s social life into its orbit, Ann’s attentive labor outside of the casino functions to corroborate sexual deregulation through the deregulation of her labor, which becomes re-absorbed into the narrative as lesbian kinship. Sexual deregulation in the form of nonheteronormative kinship reaches its crisis point in moments where Ann confronts the hidden limits of the casino as an economic enterprise, which invariably require the fixed yet flexible compliance of its workers in exchange for the casino’s regulation of Reno’s inhabitants. Desert of the Heart is in many ways a literary counterpart to Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963), which made its critical point in part through a differentiation between domestic and paid forms of labor. Read together, Friedan’s and Rule’s writings document, respectively, second-wave feminist and lesbian critical engagements with the working subject-as-enterprising subject. The enterprising subject is one that rests upon a late-capitalist ideological distinction between “enterprise” and “labor.” Most importantly, as Franco Berardi reminds us, enterprise is a concept predicated upon the invisibility of industrial relations in late-capitalist value production: In its capitalistic meaning, the word enterprise acquires new nuances, although it never loses its sense of free and constructive action. These new nuances all pertain to the opposition of labor and enterprise. Enterprise means invention and free will. Labor is repetition and executing action. Enterprise is an investment of capital generating new capital, thanks to the valorization that labor makes possible. Labor is a wage-earning service that valorizes capital but devalues workers. (77) Berardi’s framework explains the late-capitalist notion that enterprise – as a category connoting creativity and growth as capital produces more capital – is detached from its concrete foundation in labor, thereby obscuring the material conditions upon which enterprise is established. As he suggests, not only does this mystification compartmentalize capital’s material basis, but it also eclipses the very nature of capital, rendering invisible its perpetual need to expand to new markets and territories. In this light, enterprise names an ideological development that masks capital’s most insidious precepts. While Berardi begins his analysis with the digital industry of the 1980s, Betty Friedan’s (1963) “left-conservatism” (Nancy Holmstrom 165) documents a similar mystification of labor at an earlier point. Published a year prior to Edge of Twilight, Friedan’s Feminine Mystique begins with the now-famous inquiry into “the problem that has no name” to take aim at the limited possibilities for women exemplified in “the domestic routine of the housewife” (Friedan 30). Friedan articulates particular forms of women’s work outside the home – sometimes phrased as “creative work of her own”– as the primary means through which the trapped woman may come to “know herself as a person” (344) As she claims, “if a job is to be the way out of the trap as part of a life plan, it must be a job that she can take seriously as part of a life plan, work in which she can grow as part of society” (345). The enterprise in which Friedan is most interested is an enterprise of self-care and personal development through paid work of a certain caliber. Notably, Friedan calls this process a way for women to realize their full “capacities” as human beings. Framing capacity as the ability for personal growth, The Feminine Mystique emphasizes the affective component of labor as something that is achieved through a feeling of satisfaction and is only operationalized once women enter into waged work outside of the home. In one respect, then, Friedan’s argument recognizes that such capacities, while constituting a form of labor, are nonetheless commonly unwaged (as in unpaid housework). At the same time, once these labors are valued in wage form, Friedan’s logic reframes them as the means for a woman’s self-realization. In so doing, she overwrites her own tacit but crucial understanding that domestic care work and paid labor constitute two sides of the same coin in both the production of surplus value and the devaluation of feminized labor. With its near-militant heterosexual worldview, The Feminine Mystique appears on the surface to have little in common with Desert of the Heart, published the following year. Much as Friedan describes, however, the service labor Ann performs in the casino reflects the reorientation of her feminized capacities via the free market, even as value outside of those environs remains obscured. As I will discuss below, Frank’s Club produces Ann’s caring capacities as entities to be developed through the market rather than those always at risk of being used up by it. Framed in self-affirming terms evocative of Friedan, Ann’s service labor-as-enterprise illustrates Riccardo Bellofiore’s insight regarding the nature of “the command of capital over labor to assume a semblance of a control of workers over themselves. The valorization of capital can masquerade as the self-valorization of labor” (109). While it is likely that the particular kinds of labor represented in Desert of the Heart would have been left out of Feminine Mystique, it is nonetheless instructive to consider Friedan’s ideas as posing uneven but sometimes surprising points of entry for a writer such as Rule. To that end, the casino’s role as a place of reproduction establishes the novel’s overall line of argument as it pertains to non-heterosexual motherhood both within and beyond the workplace. Scholarship on Desert of the Heart from the early 1980s on has taken up various aspects of the novel’s “subtle subversion” of heterosexuality through unsettling psychoanalytic categories, surrender of poetic voice to deviant desire, or promotion of alternate, lesbian non-reproductive models of maternity.23 *BEGIN FOOTNOTE* See, for instance, Elaine T. Hansen’s examination of “nonprocreative motherhood” where Hansen claims, as Ann and Evelyn come together in the plot, their respective childlessness is revalued. In tandem they represent the possibility of maternal feelings and experiences, detached from procreation, no longer exclusively or essentially defining their womanhood but nevertheless critical to the complex drives and choices that sustain their relationship (40). Hansen argues that the novel’s rendering of the successful lesbian nonprocreative form challenges heterosexual convention through the failure of biological reproduction, since “those women in the story who try to care for children to whom they have given birth seem doomed to fail and suffer” (Hansen 46). *END FOOTNOTE* Critical acknowledgment of failed biological kinship in Desert of the Heart is important, but reading these moments apart from Ann’s attentive labor at the casino only tells half of the story. An examination of Desert of the Heart’s rendition of biological kinship in conjunction with Ann’s work reveals one of the novel’s overlooked, yet key, problematics: that is, non-procreative kinship’s contradictory significance as something that is not only allowed but increasingly mandated as an effect of the casino industry’s broadening regulation of Reno’s economic and social existence. In this light, Ann’s ability to perform the duties of the non-biological caregiver reveals the exacerbation of social need under deregulated enterprise, which requires Ann’s inattention to the causes that demand her supplemental care for those who have been disinherited from Reno’s main enterprise. In these moments, the novel’s depiction of Ann’s maternal role at work constituting an alternative to blood-line kinship is both initiated by and articulated through the regulatory framework of the casino. These developments follow the logic of deregulation writ large: Ann’s formerly regulated care work at the casino increasingly becomes flexible beyond its domain. In one example, Ann is assigned to be the relief worker at Frank’s for the night, a job, which requires her to rotate from station to station and take over as each of her co-workers takes their break. Even though it was a “foul job,” Ann is willing to take it because, as her boss tells her, Ann is “the easiest employee to move” (93). Part of the foulness of the job entails the requirement that Ann “sacrifice her own time off” if her co-workers’ breaks run long. As Frank’s flexible surrogate for the evening, Ann carries her change apron “like a fetus in its seventh month, careful to lift and turn the weight as if it were her own flesh” (94). The image calls on readers to register its irony obliquely through Ann’s lesbianism, which the text takes for granted as excluding her from biological motherhood: instead, Ann’s closest proximity to motherhood is through her capacity as a caregiver at, and attentive supplement to, the casino’s operation. Even more poignantly, however, the passage positions Ann as the subject of maternity without a signified object of care: like the change that flows into and out of her apron, her attention is exhaustively disseminated throughout the whole of Frank’s Club. Her labors model a form of deregulated care, par excellence, because her caring is defined by her a requirement to remain flexible and accommodating toward whatever needs arise in the moment. What is invoked here, then, is not a portrayal of Ann’s propensity for nonconventional motherhood, but the casino’s ability to absorb the affective and figurative trappings of conventional motherhood within its own regulatory schema. The fact that Ann’s exploitation might register as the former and not the latter pivots on her identity as a lesbian and the supposedly sympathetic notion that Frank’s allows her to exhibit her motherly tendencies, regardless. SHE CONTINUES As Edge of Twilight and Desert of the Heart demonstrate, early neoliberal lesbian subjectivity depended upon forms of affective regulation and social reproduction already in play in this period. In their professional labor and desire, Val’s and Ann’s affective capacities are de- and re-regulated, flourishing most when these women come into close proximity with deregulation’s disenfranchised others. In The Feeling of Kinship, David L. Eng describes “queer liberalism” as “a product of late capitalist rationalization that functions as a supplement to capital, but in a desexualized, repackaged, and contained form.” Eng continues, “we might say that neoliberalism enunciates (homo)sexual difference in the register of culture – a culture that is freely exchanged (purchased) and celebrated (consumed)” (30). For Eng, homosexual difference and neoliberalism are complicit to the extent that – as recent consumable TV and fashion phenomena demonstrate – “queerness” has become an “aestheticized lifestyle predicated on choice” and consumerism (29–30). As this chapter has argued, however, sexual difference under neoliberalism extends beyond these claims, which largely view its supplemental properties as “contained” and primarily operational on the side of consumerism. Christian’s and Rule’s representations of late-capitalist lesbian identity go beyond the commodification of homosexual difference. In their documentations of deregulated sexuality, we see lesbianism as a supplement to late-capitalist expansion through the lens of value production and those affective forms of labor at work in a system of exploitation with a vested interest in the versatile, non-contained capacity freed up at the intersection of sexual and economic deregulation. My readings of Edge of Twilight and Desert of the Heart locate a point where lesbian identity’s supplemental operations entail more than cultural capital in neoliberalism. Indeed, these novels suggest that sexual deregulation’s contemporary ideological force is an extension of a historical development within and adjacent to the formalized extraction of attentive labor required by the deregulated service industry. Christian and Rule reveal is a historical juncture where the contradictory promises and pitfalls of professional self-management and enterprise are enacted and made legible through their overlap with the freeing up and re-regulating of lesbian identifications and desires. To read Edge of Twilight and Desert of the Heart historically, then, is to remain skeptical and ever vigilant of modernity’s promise, which increasingly requires the implementation and erasure of flexible laboring and desiring subjects to make good on its guarantee of freedom. In what follows, I track contemporary culture’s absorption of this complex history. The aff’s investment into self-care as a form of struggle is detached from material conditions – that colludes with neoliberal austerity logics of self-help to intensify the violence of racial capitalism. Mitchell ‘13 Nick, Ethnic Studies at UC Santa Cruz. 05/14/2013. “On Audre Lorde’s Legacy and the ‘Self’ of Self-Care, Part 2 of 3,” https://www.lowendtheory.org/post/50428216600/on-audre-lordes-legacy-and-the-self-of pat – footnote 3 included in {these things} To reiterate, these death-making conditions serve as a motor for racial capitalism not only through the erasure, devaluation, and naturalization of life-making and life-sustaining (also called "reproductive”) work that women are expected to learn to do, to do, and to love doing, but also because through the erasure of “women’s work” as work, they serve to compel and coerce workers to accept waged labor above and beyond the work they already perform. This compulsion and coercion regularly takes the form of the form of the stigmatization and surveillance of poor people and poor women especially, who use governmental assistance to survive. And again, here, black women bear the brunt of the burden of capitalism’s stigmatization of the poor (of color). "Welfare,“ as Dorothy Roberts puts it, "has become a code word for race.” By which she means: a code word for blackness. Think here of the sheer prominence of the “welfare queen” stereotype (and its deployment to make common sense out of the notion that black women who use governmental assistance are parasitic on the social body). Think here, also, how the racializing and gendering of that stereotype authorizes the constant surveillance to which welfare recipients are regularly and systematically subjected, surveillance whose purpose it is to call into doubt the ability of welfare recipients to make fitting choices in deciding how and what to feed themselves (and those that depend upon them), how and what they should consume. It matters that Audre Lorde, by virtue of a class mobility that materialized in the form of advanced degrees, international recognition and renown, and semi-stable employment with what were clearly circumscribed “health benefits,” may have been able to escape the worst of the state-sanctioned, Reaganomics-fueled state surveillance directed towards poor black women. And it also matters that the racializing and gendering project of the capitalism that underwrites that surveillance also shaped the conditions in which she lived and died in ways that are too rarely recognized. We in the U.S. left are well trained to express outrage when black lives are stolen in spectacular events—not only in the assassinations of “our” Malcolms and Martins, but even in the executions of our less famed Emmetts and Oscars and Trayvons. Yet we are not always best equipped to organize against the politics that produce deaths not in spectacular (and regular), direct, face-to-face expressions of violence but rather, through other, less readily visible, rhythms and structures of everyday life. To ask that we regard Audre Lorde’s death as the outcome of a politics (and not just a disease) is both to invoke Lorde less as an exceptional figure than as a powerfully exemplary one, and to direct our attention to how the murderousness of capitalism expresses itself where it is most mundane.3 {3 The mundane murderousness of neoliberalism takes shape in a social context in which the state colludes with industry in the development and optimization of technologies and institutions that overwhelmingly take black community as their target, through the combination of austerity measures that buttress, intensify, and exploit (by racializing and gendering) inequality through enhanced forms of policing, surveillance, and incarceration.} Mundane murderousness, slow death (which may in many cases not be slow at all), has taken institutional form in part as a consequence of the consolidation of health care as a for-profit industry that defines health as the capacity to work. “Health,” in this context, is measured by the health of racial capitalism. Such a definition means that being healthy is understood as having the capacity to optimize your ability to be exploited. No medical leave, then, for the English prof who’s battling cancer. No capacity, then, to decide for herself what her health needs are and to act on that decision—the social infrastructure of neoliberalism has already coded giving its workers that much freedom, that kind of autonomy, as an unaffordable extravagance. Care as extravagance. Historically speaking, it is here, in the Reagan era, that the “self” of self-care emerged. Donald Vickery and James Fries’s bestseller Take Care of Yourself: A Consumer’s Guide to Medical Care was published in 1981, and formed part of a larger explosion of “self-help” publications that encouraged a readership increasingly clobbered by a neoliberal assault—against liveable wages, workers rights, social services, and the welfare state writ large—to take it upon themselves to manage the consequences of that clobbering. And I would argue that the “self” of self-care came into being precisely as an effect of that management, as well as of the clobbering that both preceded and accompanied it. It euphemizes as a goodwill gesture (the benevolent “take care of yourself!”) an imperative that, if elaborated, looks much more like a relation of coercion and discipline (“take care of yourself or your job will go to someone who does”; “take care of yourself lest you fall ill and get saddled with medical debt”; “take care of yourself because you have no right to expect that society will”; “take care of yourself…or else”). The self of self-care, all of this is to say, has a history that should serve as a caution toward attempts to make self-care an unqualified good. It is a self that is specifically calibrated as a defensive reaction to the combination of austerity politics with reinvigorated forms of gendered racism that cut across the entire social formation. Especially for those of us who were born and/or grew up in the Reagan and Bush I eras, the self of self-care was the form of selfhood that hegemonic institutions taught us to internalize. This is not to say that there is nothing of value to be found in the language of practice of self-care. It is to suggest, rather, that self-care is not simply a form of struggle but the outcome of various struggles that have played out on a larger scale than we tend to acknowledge when we speak of it. This struggle involved, among other things, the disqualification of initiatives by the radical labor movement to establish universal health care as a right rather than a “benefit” restricted to and contingent upon employment in certain sectors. It involved the marginalization of years of efforts by the Black Panther Party and the National Welfare Rights Organization both to establish community clinics and to redefine health care not as a commodity but as both a fundamental question of justice and a condition of community self-determination. With all of this said, what do we make of this Audre Lorde quote?: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” It is both thrilling and affirming, I think, to sit with the possibilities of redefining self-care as though it were going on the political offensive. This may especially be the case in a context where the dominant meaning of “care” either has become industrialized in such a way that it consolidates (instead of contests) one’s alienation from her conditions of existence, or from the means necessary to inform herself about, determine, and pursue the course of care and wellbeing that she needs. But what I think is especially important about this now regularly cited quotation is what comes before the first comma, what comes before, that is, the moment when self-care finds its euphemistic, sunny resolution as “political warfare”: the disavowal of self-care as “self indulgence.” What, after all, is wrong with self-indulgence, with stealing time to enjoy the self, to pursue ways of being and living that are not necessarily productive, even if to do so is to steal away from the justifiably voracious appetites of left political desire? Lorde’s rewriting of self-care as political warfare seems to me to be symptomatic of a philosophy of movement building that has an unacknowledged investment in surveilling the behavior of its members (and demanding that they surveil themselves), a philosophy that is so deeply committed to the idea that everything is political that it cannot see the ways it enforces that definition through the implicit demand that its members justify all their behavior on its terms. Everything is political, in other words, can be a particularly disciplinary and disciplining definition of the political because of the way that it privileges a kind of ruthless scrutiny, assessment, and justification of one’s behaviors on the basis of whether or not they generate political value. At the same time, it tends to regard the political less as a contestation over social transformation than as the sum total of “good” or “bad” political behaviors. At worst, everything is political can privilege a kind of left version of austerity logic, one that calls implicitly for the abstention from behaviors that don’t serve the Higher Purpose of generating and assessing individual behavior in the form of political value. It can only handle self-indulgence and extravagance when those things can be given a justifiable political form, when they can be commended or valorized, in other words, for how radical they are. It can only handle self-indulgence and extravagance, in other words, when they cease to be self-indulgent or extravagant at all, and claim, on the flip, to be productive and progressive. Austerity logics, whether they come from the left or the right, get articulated through the bodies of black women by making certain kinds of demands on them. An important thing to understand about these demands is that they do not simply take the form of general devaluation. They do not simply take the form of the welfare queen stereotype. They can also take the form of a general overinvestment or hypervaluation—in feelings and performances of excessive admiration, deference, and high regard. They can inhabit the expectation—an expectation that, again, can have the force of a demand—that black women embody a kind of superhuman strength, or that they inherently possess an exceedingly resolute political consciousness. Unlike the bad faith that underwrites the demonization of black women as unproductive, this leftist hypervaluation of black women often takes the form of love. Love: Killing love, perhaps. It is the kind of love that solicits a constant performance from black women, one that demands that they be endlessly productive, endlessly working, for the movement, even after death. It is for this reason that I spent some time in the last post attempting to contest the deification of Lorde: I want to make visible just how much work is implicitly called for in the desire for black women to be adequate to what is asked of them–which they very well may also want of themselves. The point is that any politics that seeks to celebrate the seemingly superhuman accomplishments of black women can become the unwitting collaborator with the entire field of the political that we might want to contest, a field in which the superhuman demands placed on black women are nothing short of murderous. The point is, while it may appear to honor the Audre Lordes (1934-1992) and the Barbara Christians (1943-2000) and the VèVè Clarks (1944-2007) and the Sherley Anne Williamses (1944-1999) with the demand that they rest in power, there may also be an ethics, if not also a justice, in insisting on their right to rest in peace. And the point is that our discussions about self care are particularly impoverished when they fail to engage broader questions about the structure of health care, the social distribution of wealth, and the conditions in which we live and work. This is the thread I’ll pick up in the third and final installment of this piece by addressing last year’s series of debates on self-care and community care. Viewing race as ontological forecloses the strategic alliances empirically necessary for broad social progress -~-- that locks in neoliberal politics that seek only to ensure the 1 is appropriately diverse while strengthening their stranglehold on global power Reed 18 Adolph Reed Jr., professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, “Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left,” Dialectical Anthropology, June 2018, Volume 42, Issue 2, p. 105–115 Most of all, the gains that black Americans have won have been the product of alliances condensed around broad egalitarian agendas. Historian Touré F. Reed notes: Emancipation and even Reconstruction were produced by a convergence of interests among disparate constituencies—African Americans, abolitionists, business, small freeholders, and northern laborers— united under the banner of free labor. The civil rights movement was the product of a consensus created by the New Deal that presumed the appropriateness of government intervention in private affairs for the public good, the broad repudiation of scientific racism following World War II, and the political vulnerabilities Jim Crow created for the United States during the Cold War. To be sure, Reconstruction, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, and even the civil rights movement failed to redress all of the challenges confronting blacks. But the limitations of each of these movements reflected political constraints imposed on them, in large part, by capital (Reed 2018). As A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and two generations of labor-oriented black activists—including the entire spectrum of radical to conservative black civic elites and trade union leaders collected in historian Rayford Logan’s 1944 volume, What the Negro Wants—understood, first, the exploitation and oppression of black Americans was linked to more general dynamics of exploitation and oppression and, second, the only way to attain and especially to secure benefits for black Americans is to win them for everyone. That lesson has been lost for many antiracist activists and commentators enamored with contemporary race reductionism; instead, they channel the performative militance associated with Black Power politics as the insurgent, racially authentic tendency in the late 1960s and 1970s. Yet Black Power politics consolidated as a less potentially transformative, class-skewed alternative to the black-labor-left, social-democratic approach advocated by Rustin, Randolph, and others (A. Philip Randolph Institute 1966; Randolph 2014a, b; Rustin 1965, 1966; Reed 2015, 2016a, 2017a; Le Blanc and Yates 2013; Logan 1944). Black Power politics was fundamentally a petition politics, albeit a loud and flamboyant one. For all their overheated rhetoric about self-determination, including even in some cases what now might be called cosplay fantasies of armed struggle, Black Powerites generally depended on ruling class largess for realization of their programmatic objectives. That was their alternative to trying to form broad, popular coalitions and to navigate the compromises and constraints that sort of politics requires. As a practical politics, Black Power was fundamentally directed toward government institutions, private or philanthropic funding sources, and other agencies capable of conferring or ratifying claims to represent a generic “black community” (some referred to the style at the time as “militant begging”; I suppose today it could be considered an institutional species of aggressive panhandling.) Contemporaneous critics like Harold Cruse (1968, 193–260) and Robert L. Allen (1969) pointed out the Black Power program’s class character, and Rustin presciently suggested that its most likely outcome would be “creation of a new black establishment” (1966, 36) (emphasis in original). Black Power, at least in the ethnic pluralist form in which it congealed as “black politics,” was at bottom a Bookerite politics of elite-brokerage, as is the essence of ethnic pluralism. The core Bookerite project, under the rubric of racial uplift or advancement, has always been—since Washington and the stratum of black racial advocates that emerged from the context of disfranchisement at the turn of the twentieth century—“substitution of black professionals, managers, and intellectuals for their white counterparts within those institutions charged with administering to the needs of black populations.” The political goal, that is, was establishment of “managerial authority of the nation’s Negro problem” within whatever larger political and economic order prevailed (Warren 2003, 27). Warren’s critique, which he elaborated further in What Was African American Literature (2012), sheds light on contemporary antiracists’ singular commitment to the reductionist view that race/racism is the foundation and source of all injustice and inequality affecting black Americans. It also thus helps to make sense of the affective power that explaining current inequalities through analogy to slavery or Jim Crow has in antiracist discourse. Antiracist politics is a class politics; it is rooted in the social position and worldview, and material interests of the stratum of race relations engineers and administrators who operate in Democratic party politics and as government functionaries, the punditry and commentariat, education administration and the professoriate, corporate, social service and nonprofit sectors, and the multibillion-dollar diversity industry. That stratum comes together around a commonsense commitment to the centrality of race—and other categories of ascriptive identity—as the appropriate discursive framework through which to articulate norms of justice and injustice and through which to formulate remedial responses. It has grown and become deeply embedded institutionally throughout the society as an entailment of the victories of the 1960s. As the society moves farther away from the regime of subordination and exclusion on explicitly racial terms to which race-reductionist explanations were an immediately plausible response, race has become less potent as the dominant metaphor, or blanket shorthand, through which class hierarchy is lived. And as black and white elites increasingly go through the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, operate as peers in integrated workplaces, share and interact in the same social spaces and consumption practices and preferences, they increasingly share another common sense not only about frameworks of public policy but also about the proper order of things in general. Those quotidian realities put pressure on the reductionist premise that racial subordination remains the dominant ideological or material framework generating and sustaining systemically reproduced inequalities and class power. This tension underlies a source the appeal of ontological views of racism as an animate force that transcends time and context. Because it is an evanescent Evil that is disconnected from specific human purposes and patterns of social relations, racism, again like “terrorism,” can exist anywhere at any time under any manifest conditions and is a cause that needs no causes or explanation. That is why statistical demonstration of apparent racial disparities seems within antiracist discourse to be self-sufficient evidence of the persistence of racism’s paramount impact on black Americans, despite the fact that findings of disparity: (1) are not surprising considering how entrenched inequalities work; (2) do not tell us much, if anything, about the proximate sources of the disparities; and (3) do not point to remedial responses, although those retailing the findings often present them as though they do. As Chowkwanyun and I indicate, moreover, relentless commitment to finding disparities and insistence that manifest inequalities be understood in those terms despite those interpretive failings suggests the presence of other ideological factors: Disparitarian discourse’s commitment to a fundamentally essentialist and ahistorical race-first view is betrayed in the constantly expanding panoply of neologisms – “institutional racism,” “systemic racism,” “structural racism,” “colourblind racism,” post-racial racism,” etc. – intended to graft more complex social dynamics onto a simplistic and frequently psychologistic racism/antiracism political ontology. Indeed, these efforts bring to mind Thomas Kuhn’s account of attempts to accommodate mounting anomalies to salvage an interpretive paradigm in danger of crumbling under a crisis of authority. And in this circumstance as well the salvage effort is driven by powerful material and ideological imperatives (Reed and Chowkwanyun 2012, 167). That ontological view of racism is what enabled Bell’s insistence that nothing has changed for black Americans since 1865 without having to confront apparently disconfirming evidence of his own biography and the context of his declaration. It also underlies the preference for invoking historical analogies in lieu of argument. The point of those analogies is not to explain the mechanisms through which contemporary inequalities are reproduced. It is to preserve the interpretive framework that identifies racism as the definitive source of those inequalities. Antiracism’s class character helps to understand why its adherents are so intensely committed to it even though it is so deeply flawed analytically and has generated so little popular traction politically. One layer of its appeal derives simply from habit buttressed with a simulacrum of familiarity engendered by the naïve conceptions of black political history that prompted Willie Legette’s deathless observation that “The only thing that hasn’t changed about black politics since 1965 is how we think about it” (Warren et al. 2016). People think about black politics as a unitary, transhistorical “freedom movement” or “liberation struggle” because that is how scholarly and popular discussion of black Americans’ political activity has been framed almost universally since the academic study of black politics and political thought took shape during the 1950s and 1960s, and especially after the institutionalization of black studies as a field of study in the academic mainstream through the 1970s to 1990s. The guild interest in carving out and protecting the boundaries of a field of study and interpretive authority over its subject matter converges with the broader class interest in maintaining managerial and interpretive authority in the political economy of race relations (Reed 2004). Crucial to making sense of the current political moment and how to navigate the real perils that face us after November 2016 is recognition that, no matter how it may have been aligned in the past, antiracist politics now is fundamentally antagonistic to a left politics of broadly egalitarian social transformation. Key elements of the black professional-managerial strata have been embedded in and are agents and minions of what we now call neoliberalism—as public functionaries, contractors, and aspirants—since its emergence in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1980s and 1990s, underclass ideology rationalized claims to a special tutelary role for the black professional-managerial class in relation to a rank-and-file black population that that politics rendered invisible as postal workers, teachers, truck drivers, carpenters, clerks, warehouse workers, electricians or line workers, nurses, cable technicians, etc. or members of a constantly expanding industrial reserve army and represented as an undifferentiated mass to be ventriloquized and “uplifted.” Underclass ideology came with a remedy of inculcating “personal responsibility,” which conveniently permits public officials to deflect concerns with retreat from social service provision and other social wage policies in an era increasingly defined by regressive transfer. Neoliberal privatization also has produced greatly expanded commercial and career opportunities for black (and Latino, female, etc.) entrepreneurs under the rubric of community “empowerment,” “role modeling,” or “social entrepreneurialism” in a vast third sector economy driven by a nonprofit sector likely as not committed to privatizing public goods in the name of localist authenticity and doing well by doing good, as well as the steadily growing diversity industry. These developments legitimize an ideal of social justice shriveled to little more than enhancement of opportunity for individual upward mobility—within the strictures of neoliberal accumulation by dispossession. Black professional-managerial class embeddedness has become increasingly solidified with the Clinton/Obama/Emanuel wing of the Democratic party’s aggressive commitment to a left-neoliberalism centered on advancement of Wall Street and Silicon Valley economic interests and strong support for social justice defined in identity group terms. But that is necessarily a notion of social justice and equality that is disconnected from political economy and the capitalist class dynamics that generate the most profound inequalities in the society. And militant opposition to conventional left norms of justice that center on economic equality unites the Clintonite neoliberal Democrats and race-reductionist antiracists. In this regard, the most telling moments of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination campaign included when the random, self-selected Black Lives Matter activists attacked Sanders for supposedly not declaring his opposition to racism in a way that suited their tastes and when former civil rights movement icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and other prominent black functionaries denounced Sanders’s calls for greatly expanding social wage policy and shifting national priorities toward addressing the needs of working people as irresponsible. Perhaps most telling of all, though, was when and most of all how Hillary Clinton blithely and disingenuously blew off Sanders’s concerns with economic injustice. On the eve of the Nevada primary, she declared to a rally of her supporters “Not everything is about an economic theory, right? If we broke up the big banks tomorrow – and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will – would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight? Would that solve our problem with voting rights, and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly, the young?” (Weigel 2016). Since the election, that alliance against class politics has become even more aggressive in red-baiting Sanders and the left via a new sort of race-baiting—attacking socialism, and advocates of socialism or social-democratic politics, as racist or white supremacist. It has closed ranks around condemnation of working-class whites who voted for Trump as loathsome and irredeemable racists with whom political solidarity is indefensible and in the process reducing “working class” to a white racial category and synonym for backwardness and bigotry. Antiracists and neoliberal Democrats unite in high moral dudgeon to denounce suggestions that more than racism operated to generate the Trump vote and that some working people, particularly those whom Les Leopold describes as Obama/Sanders/Trump voters—and not necessarily only white ones—felt betrayed by both parties (Leopold 2017; Lopez 2016; Parenti 2016; Edwards-Levy 2017; Shepard 2017; Skelley 2017; Cohn 2017). The practical upshot of that moral stance is that there can be no political alternative outside neoliberalism. That is why it is important, as we look toward the daunting prospect of building a movement capable of changing the terms of debate in American politics to center the interests and concerns of working people—of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and whatever immigration status—who are the vast majority of the country, that we recognize that race-reductionist politics is the left wing of neoliberalism and nothing more. It is openly antagonistic to the idea of a solidaristic left. It is more important than ever to acknowledge that reality and act accordingly. Capitalism causes war, violence, environmental destruction and extinction Robinson 14 (William I., Prof. of Sociology, Global and International Studies, and Latin American Studies, @ UC-Santa Barbara, “Global Capitalism: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism” The World Financial Review) Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises ¶ Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the “Great Recession” of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system. ¶ Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into a structural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contra- dictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the struc- tural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corpo- rate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux. ¶ Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships. The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system’s authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators. By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new “Dark Ages.”2 ¶ This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present: ¶ 1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine “planetary boundaries” crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at “tipping points,” meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries. ¶ 2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived; ¶ 3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand? ¶ 4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a “planet of slums,”4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction - to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on; ¶ 5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a “hegemon,” or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction. ¶ Global Police State ¶ How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute. ¶ One is what we could call “reformism from above.” This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical re- sponses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges. ¶ Yet another response is that I term 21st century fascism.5 The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. Join the Party-~--a praxis with an unflinching communist orientation Escalante 18 (Alyson Escalante is a Marxist-Leninist, Materialist Feminist and Anti-Imperialist activist. “PARTY ORGANIZING IN THE 21ST CENTURY” September 21st, 2018 https://theforgenews.org/2018/09/21/party-organizing-in-the-21st-century/ cVs) I would argue that within the base building movement, there is a move towards party organizing, but this trend has not always been explicitly theorized or forwarded within the movement. My goal in this essay is to argue that base building and dual power strategy can be best forwarded through party organizing, and that party organizing can allow this emerging movement to solidify into a powerful revolutionary socialist tendency in the United States. One of the crucial insights of the base building movement is that the current state of the left in the United States is one in which revolution is not currently possible. There exists very little popular support for socialist politics. A century of anticommunist propaganda has been extremely effective in convincing even the most oppressed and marginalized that communism has nothing to offer them. The base building emphasis on dual power responds directly to this insight. By building institutions which can meet people’s needs, we are able to concretely demonstrate that communists can offer the oppressed relief from the horrific conditions of capitalism. Base building strategy recognizes that actually doing the work to serve the people does infinitely more to create a socialist base of popular support than electing democratic socialist candidates or holding endless political education classes can ever hope to do. Dual power is about proving that we have something to offer the oppressed. The question, of course, remains: once we have built a base of popular support, what do we do next? If it turns out that establishing socialist institutions to meet people’s needs does in fact create sympathy towards the cause of communism, how can we mobilize that base? Put simply: in order to mobilize the base which base builders hope to create, we need to have already done the work of building a communist party. It is not enough to simply meet peoples needs. Rather, we must build the institutions of dual power in the name of communism. We must refuse covert front organizing and instead have a public face as a communist party. When we build tenants unions, serve the people programs, and other dual power projects, we must make it clear that we are organizing as communists, unified around a party, and are not content simply with establishing endless dual power organizations. We must be clear that our strategy is revolutionary and in order to make this clear we must adopt party organizing. By “party organizing” I mean an organizational strategy which adopts the party model. Such organizing focuses on building a party whose membership is formally unified around a party line determined by democratic centralist decision making. The party model creates internal methods for holding party members accountable, unifying party member action around democratically determined goals, and for educating party members in communist theory and praxis. A communist organization utilizing the party model works to build dual power institutions while simultaneously educating the communities they hope to serve. Organizations which adopt the party model focus on propagandizing around the need for revolutionary socialism. They function as the forefront of political organizing, empowering local communities to theorize their liberation through communist theory while organizing communities to literally fight for their liberation. A party is not simply a group of individuals doing work together, but is a formal organization unified in its fight against capitalism. Party organizing has much to offer the base building movement. By working in a unified party, base builders can ensure that local struggles are tied to and informed by a unified national and international strategy. While the most horrific manifestations of capitalism take on particular and unique form at the local level, we need to remember that our struggle is against a material base which functions not only at the national but at the international level. The formal structures provided by a democratic centralist party model allow individual locals to have a voice in open debate, but also allow for a unified strategy to emerge from democratic consensus. Furthermore, party organizing allows for local organizations and individual organizers to be held accountable for their actions. It allows criticism to function not as one independent group criticizing another independent group, but rather as comrades with a formal organizational unity working together to sharpen each others strategies and to help correct chauvinist ideas and actions. In the context of the socialist movement within the United States, such accountability is crucial. As a movement which operates within a settler colonial society, imperialist and colonial ideal frequently infect leftist organizing. Creating formal unity and party procedure for dealing with and correcting these ideas allows us to address these consistent problems within American socialist organizing. Having a formal party which unifies the various dual power projects being undertaken at the local level also allows for base builders to not simply meet peoples needs, but to pull them into the membership of the party as organizers themselves. The party model creates a means for sustained growth to occur by unifying organizers in a manner that allows for skills, strategies, and ideas to be shared with newer organizers. It also allows community members who have been served by dual power projects to take an active role in organizing by becoming party members and participating in the continued growth of base building strategy. It ensures that there are formal processes for educating communities in communist theory and praxis, and also enables them to act and organize in accordance with their own local conditions. We also must recognize that the current state of the base building movement precludes the possibility of such a national unified party in the present moment. Since base building strategy is being undertaken in a number of already established organizations, it is not likely that base builders would abandon these organizations in favor of founding a unified party. Additionally, it would not be strategic to immediately undertake such complete unification because it would mean abandoning the organizational contexts in which concrete gains are already being made and in which growth is currently occurring. What is important for base builders to focus on in the current moment is building dual power on a local level alongside building a national movement. This means aspiring towards the possibility of a unified party, while pursuing continued local growth. The movement within the Marxist Center network towards some form of unification is positive step in the right direction. The independent party emphasis within the Refoundation caucus should also be recognized as a positive approach. It is important for base builders to continue to explore the possibility of unification, and to maintain unification through a party model as a long term goal. In the meantime, individual base building organizations ought to adopt party models for their local organizing. Local organizations ought to be building dual power alongside recruitment into their organizations, education of community members in communist theory and praxis, and the establishment of armed and militant party cadres capable of defending dual power institutions from state terror. Dual power institutions must be unified openly and transparently around these organizations in order for them to operate as more than “red charities.” Serving the people means meeting their material needs while also educating and propagandizing. It means radicalizing, recruiting, and organizing. The party model remains the most useful method for achieving these ends. The use of the party model by local organizations allows base builders to gain popular support, and most importantly, to mobilize their base of popular support towards revolutionary ends, not simply towards the construction of a parallel economy which exists as an end in and of itself. It is my hope that we will see future unification of the various local base building organizations into a national party, but in the meantime we must push for party organizing at the local level. If local organizations adopt party organizing, it ought to become clear that a unified national party will have to be the long term goal of the base building movement. Many of the already existing organizations within the base building movement already operate according to these principles. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. Rather, my hope is to suggest that we ought to be explicit about the need for party organizing and emphasize the relationship between dual power and the party model. Doing so will make it clear that the base building movement is not pursuing a cooperative economy alongside capitalism, but is pursuing a revolutionary socialist strategy capable of fighting capitalism. The long term details of base building and dual power organizing will arise organically in response to the conditions the movement finds itself operating within. I hope that I have put forward a useful contribution to the discussion about base building organizing, and have demonstrated the need for party organizing in order to ensure that the base building tendency maintains a revolutionary orientation. The finer details of revolutionary strategy will be worked out over time and are not a good subject for public discussion. I strongly believe party organizing offers the best path for ensuring that such strategy will succeed. My goal here is not to dictate the only possible path forward but to open a conversation about how the base building movement will organize as it transitions from a loose network of individual organizations into a unified socialist tendency. These discussions and debates will be crucial to ensuring that this rapidly growing movement can succeed.
11/8/21
2 - K - Capitalism v Hair Down
Tournament: TFA State | Round: Doubles | Opponent: PlaEas Neel Kanamangala | Judge: Holden Bukowsky, Alexander Yoakum, Avery Wilson
K
Capitalism causes massive violence and inevitable extinction – the fundamental task is developing tools for organization and tactics to bring about revolution.
Global capitalism demands universal tactics to organize and unify the left – focus on the particularities sell out to neoliberal folk politics.
Williams and Srnicek '15 ~Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek, fastest Leftists in the West. City University London. 2015. "Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work".~ pat – language ~modified~ To invoke modernity is ultimately to raise the question of the future. What should AND , and it is heterogeneous and includes differences, rather than eliminating them.
Refusal of science and objectivity is capitalist obfuscation which precludes the ability to develop liberatory knowledge and shuts down self-criticism – truth is found through commitment to revolutionary practice.
Vote negative for communist organizing – that requires collective struggle and the establishment of centralized organization to inform both theory and practice.
Kuhn '18 ~Gabriel, Austrian-born writer and translator living in Sweden. Among his book publications is "All Power to the Councils! A Documentary History of the German Revolution of 1918-1919". March 2018. "Don't Mourn, Organize! Is Communism a Pipe Dream—or a Viable Future?" https://brooklynrail.org/2018/03/field-notes/Dont-Morn-Organize-Is-Communism-a-Pipe-Dreamor-a-Viable-Future~~ pat The forms of organization this requires must go further than the affinity group but stop AND can watch failure unfold. The challenge lies in helping to prevent it.
Oppression based on hair is defined by drive for economic progression – only taking down capitalism can resolve their impacts – Their evidence
Westlake reads Blue Chante Griffin, 7-3-2019, "How Natural Black Hair at Work Became a Civil Rights Issue," JSTOR Daily, https://daily.jstor.org/how-natural-black-hair-at-work-became-a-civil-rights-issue/n33l In 2010, Chastity Jones eagerly accepted a job offer from Catastrophe Management Solutions as AND Americans will be forced to choose between embracing their identities and economic advancement.
3/12/22
2 - K - Capitalism v Mollow
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: 4 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: Allison Aldridge
K
Capitalism causes massive violence and inevitable extinction – the fundamental task is developing tools for organization and tactics to bring about revolution.
Fantasies of disabled bodies as inherently resistant to capitalism mystifies how disability becomes a site of value extraction and papers over Western privilege.
Puar '17 Jasbir Puar is an Associate Professor of Women's and Gender Studies at Rutgers University and has a Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies from UC Berkeley. "Crip Nationalism: From Narrative Prosthesis to Disaster Capitalism," Chapter 2 in "The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability" Language edited NT 18 rc/pat Neoliberal investments in the body as portfolio, as site of entrepreneurship, entail transition AND /developed nations and the disarray of the rest/developing nations. /
Capitalism both explains the rise of Trump and ableism – they're created out of a drive for productivity and a fear of being unproductive and discarded
Andrew Harnish 17. Professor of English and Creative Writing, University of North Dakota, "Ableism and the Trump phenomenon," Disability and Society 2017. Vol. 32, No. 3. Pp 423-428. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09687599.2017.1288684?needAccess=true The rural, white working class offered Donald Trump unprecedented support in the 2016 US AND , will increase the structural ableism that already obtains in the United States.
Vote negative for communist organizing – that requires collective struggle and the establishment of centralized organization to inform both theory and practice.
Kuhn '18 ~Gabriel, Austrian-born writer and translator living in Sweden. Among his book publications is "All Power to the Councils! A Documentary History of the German Revolution of 1918-1919". March 2018. "Don't Mourn, Organize! Is Communism a Pipe Dream—or a Viable Future?" https://brooklynrail.org/2018/03/field-notes/Dont-Morn-Organize-Is-Communism-a-Pipe-Dreamor-a-Viable-Future~~ pat The forms of organization this requires must go further than the affinity group but stop AND can watch failure unfold. The challenge lies in helping to prevent it.
The alt reorganizes social and economic life around a new concept of work that doesn't mandate ableist productivity and creates solidarity.
Slorach '15 Roddy Slorach is a Senior Disability Advisor at Imperial College London "From Rights to Revolution," Chapter 14 in "A Very Capitalist Condition – A History and Politics of Disability" NT 18 Disability, as we have seen, is deeply embedded within capitalism and can be AND the Paris Commune in 1871 needs little amending almost 150 years later:
12/18/21
2 - K - Capitalism v Mollow v2
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: 5 | Opponent: King CP | Judge: Connor Lindquist K Capitalism causes massive violence and inevitable extinction – the fundamental task is developing tools for organization and tactics to bring about revolution. Escalante '19 Alyson, revolutionary Marxist (duh), philosophy at U of Oregon. 09/08/2019. "Truth and Practice: The Marxist Theory of Knowledge". https://web.archive.org/web/20190910040756/https://failingthatinvent.home.blog/2019/09/08/truth-and-practic-the-marxist-theory-of-knowledge/~~ pat The world we live in today is in a dire state. Climate destruction continues AND scientific status of Marxism, and must insist on the possibility of victory.
Fantasies of disabled bodies as inherently resistant to capitalism mystifies how disability becomes a site of value extraction and papers over Western privilege. Puar '17 Jasbir Puar is an Associate Professor of Women's and Gender Studies at Rutgers University and has a Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies from UC Berkeley. "Crip Nationalism: From Narrative Prosthesis to Disaster Capitalism," Chapter 2 in "The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability" Language edited NT 18 rc/pat Neoliberal investments in the body as portfolio, as site of entrepreneurship, entail transition AND /developed nations and the disarray of the rest/developing nations. /
Capitalism both explains the rise of Trump and ableism – they're created out of a drive for productivity and a fear of being unproductive and discarded Andrew Harnish 17. Professor of English and Creative Writing, University of North Dakota, "Ableism and the Trump phenomenon," Disability and Society 2017. Vol. 32, No. 3. Pp 423-428. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09687599.2017.1288684?needAccess=true The rural, white working class offered Donald Trump unprecedented support in the 2016 US AND , will increase the structural ableism that already obtains in the United States.
Vote negative for communist organizing – that requires collective struggle and the establishment of centralized organization to inform both theory and practice. Kuhn '18 Gabriel, Austrian-born writer and translator living in Sweden. Among his book publications is "All Power to the Councils! A Documentary History of the German Revolution of 1918-1919". March 2018. "Don't Mourn, Organize! Is Communism a Pipe Dream—or a Viable Future?" https://brooklynrail.org/2018/03/field-notes/Dont-Morn-Organize-Is-Communism-a-Pipe-Dreamor-a-Viable-Future~~ pat The forms of organization this requires must go further than the affinity group but stop AND can watch failure unfold. The challenge lies in helping to prevent it.
12/23/21
2 - K - Capitalism v Race War
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: PlaEas Jay Namdhari | Judge: Chris Castillo
Class war, not race war – the history of racist violence is grounded by the capitalist misinformation – ensures genocidal wars – vote neg for working class unity against the bourgeoisie.
ICC 9 (Insurgency Culture Collective, We are Class War Anarchists. We advocate the methods of Revolutionary Syndicalism to win the class war against the corruption of the rich and powerful. "Class War, Not Race War." Posted on 4-26-09. http://freepacifica.savegrassrootsradio.org/redblack/postersetc/classrace.pdfshree) CLASS WAR - NOT RACE WAR RACISM IS THE IDEOLOGY OF THE RICH Racism plays AND THE RICH - NOT THE POOR! NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR!
Capitalism causes massive violence and inevitable extinction – the fundamental task is developing tools for organization and tactics to bring about revolution.
Escalante 19 ~Alyson, revolutionary Marxist (duh), philosophy at U of Oregon. 09/08/2019. "Truth and Practice: The Marxist Theory of Knowledge". https://failingthatinvent.home.blog/2019/09/08/truth-and-practic-the-marxist-theory-of-knowledge/~~ Pat The world we live in today is in a dire state. Climate destruction continues AND scientific status of Marxism, and must insist on the possibility of victory.
Undercommuning is not revolutionary but drives capital
Neary 12 (Mike, Professor Mike Neary, Dean of Teaching and Learning, Director of the Graduate School and Director of the Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS. Before taking up the role of Dean of Teaching and Learning at the University of Lincoln in 2007, Mike taught political sociology at the University of Warwick (1994–2007). Prior to becoming an academic, Mike worked in youth and community development in south London (1980–1994). "Student as producer: an institution of the common? Or how to recover communist/revolutionary science." The Higher Education Academy, July, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/disciplines/social-sciences/ELiSS0403A_Guest_paper.pdfshree) This subversive aspect of Student as Producer is not only a function of Marxist social AND " (Marx's theses on Feuerbach, quoted in Foster 2000: 112).
The aff's aesthetic resistance couples with their interpretation of blackness to enable tokenization – that positions them as antagonistic to those who fail to represent in ways that generate surplus for the representational economy.
Nyong'o 14 (Tavia Nyong'o is an American cultural critic, historian and performance studies scholar. He is currently a Professor of American Studies at Yale University where he teaches courses on black diaspora performance, cultural studies, social and critical theory. "Unburdening Representation" The Black Scholar 44(2) Summer 2014 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00064246.2014.11413689 cVs) A classic point of departure for discussions of the politics of representation is Gayatri Spivak's AND terms "communicative capitalism," reproduces invisibility through the guise of empowerment.10
Vote negative for communist organizing – that requires collective struggle and the establishment of centralized organization to inform both theory and practice.
Kuhn '18 ~Gabriel, Austrian-born writer and translator living in Sweden. Among his book publications is "All Power to the Councils! A Documentary History of the German Revolution of 1918-1919". March 2018. "Don't Mourn, Organize! Is Communism a Pipe Dream—or a Viable Future?" https://brooklynrail.org/2018/03/field-notes/Dont-Morn-Organize-Is-Communism-a-Pipe-Dreamor-a-Viable-Future~~ pat The forms of organization this requires must go further than the affinity group but stop AND can watch failure unfold. The challenge lies in helping to prevent it.
3/12/22
2 - K - Spikes
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Dulles TY | Judge: Ben Waldman, Austin Broussard, Jeong-Wan Choi Their strategy of quick, blippy, hidden arguments exclude people with learning disabilities Thompson 15 Terrence Lonam April 21, 2015 “Miscellaneous Thoughts from the Disorganized Mind of Marshall Thompson” http://nsdupdate.com/2015/04/21/miscellaneous-thoughts-from-the-disorganized-mind-of-marshall-thompson/ First, I think that evaluating who is the better debater via who dropped spikes excludes lots of specific individuals, especially those with learning disabilities. I have both moderate dyslexia and extreme dysgraphia. Despite debating for four years with a lot of success I was never able to deal with spikes. I could not ‘mind-sweep’ because my flow was not clear enough to find the arguments I needed, and I was simply too slow a reader to be able to reread through the relevant parts of a case during prep-time. I was very lucky, my junior year (which was the first year I really competed on the national circuit) spikes were remarkably uncommon. Looking back it was in many ways the low-point for spike. They started to be used some my senior year but not anything like the extent they are used today. I am entirely confident, however, in saying that if spikes had had anywhere near the same prevalence when I started doing ‘circuit’ debate as they do now, I—with the specific ways that dyslexia/dysgraphia has affected me—would never have bothered to try to debate national circuit LD (I don’t intend to imply this is the same for anyone who has dyslexia or dysgraphia, the particular ways that learning disabilities manifest is often difficult to track). Now, the mere fact that I would have been prevented from succeeding in the activity and possibly from being able to enjoyably compete is not an argument. I never would have been able to succeed at calligraphy, but I would hardly claim we should therefore not make the calligraphy club about handwriting. Instead, what I am suggesting is that the values that debate cares about and should be assessing are not questions of handwriting or notation. We expect notation instrumentally to avoid intervention, but it is not one of the ends of debate in itself. Thus, if there is a viable principle upon which we can decrease this strategic dimension of spikes but maintain non-intervention I think we should do so. I was ‘good’ at philosophy, ‘good’ at argument generation, ‘good’ at research, ‘good’ at casing, ‘great’ at framework comparison etc. It seems to me that as long as I can flow well enough to easily follow a non-tricky aff it was proper that my learning disabilities not be an obstacle to my success. (One other thing to note, while I was a ‘framework debater’ who could never have been good at spikes because of my learning disability I have never met a ‘tricky debater’ who could not have succeeded in debate without tricks simply in virtue of their intelligence and technical proficiency; that is perhaps another reason to favor my account.)
Vote them down – inclusion is a tangible out-of-round impact distinct from the procedural aspects of debate – it’s key to minority participation.
11/7/21
2 - PIK - Race War
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: PlaEas Jay Namdhari | Judge: Chris Castillo
Text - We affirm the 1AC absent the phrase 'race war.'
The concept of "race war" has a racist pedigree – assumes equal force is being used by both sides which mystifies anti-blackness – endorse militancy as an endurance strategy without this discursive formation
Stoehr 12 John Stoehr's writing has appeared in American Prospect, Reuters, the Guardian, Dissent, the New York Daily News and The Forward. He is a frequent contributor to the New Statesman and a columnist for the Mint Press News. 'Race war': A trick of political rhetoric https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201241264514867938.html New Haven, CT - Last weekend, two white men went on a shooting AND lethal" weaponry of the day: fire hoses, batons and dogs.
Frame subtraction is best—-absent a stable plan, treat the entire 1AC as negative offense. We can correct and refine frames throughout the debate—-key to nuance and detailed clash.
3/12/22
2 - PIK - Redaction
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 6 | Opponent: PlaEas Jay Namdhari | Judge: Chris Castillo
Text - Vote Neg to redact the 1AC - the CP does the aff but doesn't say it.
Solves the Aff – 1~ Disclosing militant strategies leads to militant crackdowns and the fracturing of undercommon collectivity and 2~ Ruptures Semiotics because it's non-communicative – the Aff feeds the system by speaking within spaces like Debate.
3/12/22
3 - NC - Util v Prag
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memori Daniel Xu | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
FW
Hijacking prag – it concludes death outweighs
1~ Death is the lack of value – deliberation necessitates existence and the ability to deliberate
Reck '15 Reck, Andrew. "A Contextualist Thanatology: A Pragmatic Approach to Death and Dying." Taylor and Francis, 10 Feb. 2015, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481187708252903?journalCode=udst19. Lindale PP Viewed from the modern American standpoint, life is the ground of all our values AND While death is inevitable for every man, it need not happen now.
2~ It's intrinsic to Pragmatism – terminates the need of values from other people
Reck '15 Reck, Andrew. "A Contextualist Thanatology: A Pragmatic Approach to Death and Dying." Taylor and Francis, 10 Feb. 2015, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481187708252903?journalCode=udst19. Lindale PP Pragmatism is the philosophy appropriate to American civilization with its conception of life as the AND life would be brief and brutish indeed, and the medical arts untended.
3~ It maximizes deliberation – a person cannot grow from deliberating with others during the process of dying
Reck '15 Reck, Andrew. "A Contextualist Thanatology: A Pragmatic Approach to Death and Dying." Taylor and Francis, 10 Feb. 2015, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481187708252903?journalCode=udst19. Lindale PP The pragmatic approach to death and dying, therefore, is oriented to the preservation AND sense that, though ending for the individual, life is ultimately valuable.
4~ Materialism Double Bind – either a) they care about death and see it as the worst impact under their framework which means the DAs/Case turns still apply or b) they do not care about death and do not see it as the worst impact under their framework which means they justify atrocities or simply ignore them because death isn't bad – means you should drop their framework for being morally repugnant.
5~ Hijack Empirics – if different people have different conceptions of morality that inevitably interconnect to find a moral truth we should preserve our ability to find that truth – means extinction comes first
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.
6~ Death outweighs — A~ Agents can't act if they fear for their bodily security—my framework constrains every NC and K and B~ It's the worst form of evil:
Paterson 3 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics. Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82
That outweighs – even if they win those consequences come second, the act of dying precludes their offence on face
Prag is a meta-ethic, not a normative claim – just because we need deliberation to determine ethics it doesn't mean that it is our end goal in ethics, it just means it is a step toward reaching the conclusion of the hijack
3/11/22
3 - NC - Util v1
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jayanne Forrest The standard is maximizing expected well-being, or hedonistic act utilitarianism. 1 Neuroscience- pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses. Blum et al. 18 Kenneth Blum, 1Department of Psychiatry, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton VA Medical Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA 5Department of Precision Medicine, Geneus Health LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA 6Department of Addiction Research and Therapy, Nupathways Inc., Innsbrook, MO, USA 7Department of Clinical Neurology, Path Foundation, New York, NY, USA 8Division of Neuroscience-Based Addiction Therapy, The Shores Treatment and Recovery Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA 9Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 10Division of Addiction Research, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC. North Kingston, RI, USA 11Victory Nutrition International, Lederach, PA., USA 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA, Marjorie Gondré-Lewis, 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA 13Departments of Anatomy and Psychiatry, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC US, Bruce Steinberg, 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA, Igor Elman, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, David Baron, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Edward J Modestino, 14Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA, Rajendra D Badgaiyan, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, Mark S Gold 16Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, “Our evolved unique pleasure circuit makes humans different from apes: Reconsideration of data derived from animal studies”, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 February 2018, accessed: 19 August 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446569/ R.S. Pleasure is not only one of the three primary reward functions but it also defines reward. As homeostasis explains the functions of only a limited number of rewards, the principal reason why particular stimuli, objects, events, situations, and activities are rewarding may be due to pleasure. This applies first of all to sex and to the primary homeostatic rewards of food and liquid and extends to money, taste, beauty, social encounters and nonmaterial, internally set, and intrinsic rewards. Pleasure, as the primary effect of rewards, drives the prime reward functions of learning, approach behavior, and decision making and provides the basis for hedonic theories of reward function. We are attracted by most rewards and exert intense efforts to obtain them, just because they are enjoyable 10. Pleasure is a passive reaction that derives from the experience or prediction of reward and may lead to a long-lasting state of happiness. The word happiness is difficult to define. In fact, just obtaining physical pleasure may not be enough. One key to happiness involves a network of good friends. However, it is not obvious how the higher forms of satisfaction and pleasure are related to an ice cream cone, or to your team winning a sporting event. Recent multidisciplinary research, using both humans and detailed invasive brain analysis of animals has discovered some critical ways that the brain processes pleasure 14. Pleasure as a hallmark of reward is sufficient for defining a reward, but it may not be necessary. A reward may generate positive learning and approach behavior simply because it contains substances that are essential for body function. When we are hungry, we may eat bad and unpleasant meals. A monkey who receives hundreds of small drops of water every morning in the laboratory is unlikely to feel a rush of pleasure every time it gets the 0.1 ml. Nevertheless, with these precautions in mind, we may define any stimulus, object, event, activity, or situation that has the potential to produce pleasure as a reward. In the context of reward deficiency or for disorders of addiction, homeostasis pursues pharmacological treatments: drugs to treat drug addiction, obesity, and other compulsive behaviors. The theory of allostasis suggests broader approaches - such as re-expanding the range of possible pleasures and providing opportunities to expend effort in their pursuit. 15. It is noteworthy, the first animal studies eliciting approach behavior by electrical brain stimulation interpreted their findings as a discovery of the brain’s pleasure centers 16 which were later partly associated with midbrain dopamine neurons 17–19 despite the notorious difficulties of identifying emotions in animals. Evolutionary theories of pleasure: The love connection BO Charles Darwin and other biological scientists that have examined the biological evolution and its basic principles found various mechanisms that steer behavior and biological development. Besides their theory on natural selection, it was particularly the sexual selection process that gained significance in the latter context over the last century, especially when it comes to the question of what makes us “what we are,” i.e., human. However, the capacity to sexually select and evolve is not at all a human accomplishment alone or a sign of our uniqueness; yet, we humans, as it seems, are ingenious in fooling ourselves and others–when we are in love or desperately search for it. It is well established that modern biological theory conjectures that organisms are the result of evolutionary competition. In fact, Richard Dawkins stresses gene survival and propagation as the basic mechanism of life 20. Only genes that lead to the fittest phenotype will make it. It is noteworthy that the phenotype is selected based on behavior that maximizes gene propagation. To do so, the phenotype must survive and generate offspring, and be better at it than its competitors. Thus, the ultimate, distal function of rewards is to increase evolutionary fitness by ensuring the survival of the organism and reproduction. It is agreed that learning, approach, economic decisions, and positive emotions are the proximal functions through which phenotypes obtain other necessary nutrients for survival, mating, and care for offspring. Behavioral reward functions have evolved to help individuals to survive and propagate their genes. Apparently, people need to live well and long enough to reproduce. Most would agree that homo-sapiens do so by ingesting the substances that make their bodies function properly. For this reason, foods and drinks are rewards. Additional rewards, including those used for economic exchanges, ensure sufficient palatable food and drink supply. Mating and gene propagation is supported by powerful sexual attraction. Additional properties, like body form, augment the chance to mate and nourish and defend offspring and are therefore also rewards. Care for offspring until they can reproduce themselves helps gene propagation and is rewarding; otherwise, many believe mating is useless. According to David E Comings, as any small edge will ultimately result in evolutionary advantage 21, additional reward mechanisms like novelty seeking and exploration widen the spectrum of available rewards and thus enhance the chance for survival, reproduction, and ultimate gene propagation. These functions may help us to obtain the benefits of distant rewards that are determined by our own interests and not immediately available in the environment. Thus the distal reward function in gene propagation and evolutionary fitness defines the proximal reward functions that we see in everyday behavior. That is why foods, drinks, mates, and offspring are rewarding. There have been theories linking pleasure as a required component of health benefits salutogenesis, (salugenesis). In essence, under these terms, pleasure is described as a state or feeling of happiness and satisfaction resulting from an experience that one enjoys. Regarding pleasure, it is a double-edged sword, on the one hand, it promotes positive feelings (like mindfulness) and even better cognition, possibly through the release of dopamine 22. But on the other hand, pleasure simultaneously encourages addiction and other negative behaviors, i.e., motivational toxicity. It is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on reward circuitry or limbic activity. It is important to realize that through the “Brain Reward Cascade” (BRC) endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms may play a role 23. While natural rewards are essential for survival and appetitive motivation leading to beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction, crucial social interactions seem to further facilitate the positive effects exerted by pleasurable experiences. Indeed, experimentation with addictive drugs is capable of directly acting on reward pathways and causing deterioration of these systems promoting hypodopaminergia 24. Most would agree that pleasurable activities can stimulate personal growth and may help to induce healthy behavioral changes, including stress management 25. The work of Esch and Stefano 26 concerning the link between compassion and love implicate the brain reward system, and pleasure induction suggests that social contact in general, i.e., love, attachment, and compassion, can be highly effective in stress reduction, survival, and overall health. Understanding the role of neurotransmission and pleasurable states both positive and negative have been adequately studied over many decades 26–37, but comparative anatomical and neurobiological function between animals and homo sapiens appear to be required and seem to be in an infancy stage. Finding happiness is different between apes and humans As stated earlier in this expert opinion one key to happiness involves a network of good friends 38. However, it is not entirely clear exactly how the higher forms of satisfaction and pleasure are related to a sugar rush, winning a sports event or even sky diving, all of which augment dopamine release at the reward brain site. Recent multidisciplinary research, using both humans and detailed invasive brain analysis of animals has discovered some critical ways that the brain processes pleasure. Remarkably, there are pathways for ordinary liking and pleasure, which are limited in scope as described above in this commentary. However, there are many brain regions, often termed hot and cold spots, that significantly modulate (increase or decrease) our pleasure or even produce the opposite of pleasure— that is disgust and fear 39. One specific region of the nucleus accumbens is organized like a computer keyboard, with particular stimulus triggers in rows— producing an increase and decrease of pleasure and disgust. Moreover, the cortex has unique roles in the cognitive evaluation of our feelings of pleasure 40. Importantly, the interplay of these multiple triggers and the higher brain centers in the prefrontal cortex are very intricate and are just being uncovered. Desire and reward centers It is surprising that many different sources of pleasure activate the same circuits between the mesocorticolimbic regions (Figure 1). Reward and desire are two aspects pleasure induction and have a very widespread, large circuit. Some part of this circuit distinguishes between desire and dread. The so-called pleasure circuitry called “REWARD” involves a well-known dopamine pathway in the mesolimbic system that can influence both pleasure and motivation. In simplest terms, the well-established mesolimbic system is a dopamine circuit for reward. It starts in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) of the midbrain and travels to the nucleus accumbens (Figure 2). It is the cornerstone target to all addictions. The VTA is encompassed with neurons using glutamate, GABA, and dopamine. The nucleus accumbens (NAc) is located within the ventral striatum and is divided into two sub-regions—the motor and limbic regions associated with its core and shell, respectively. The NAc has spiny neurons that receive dopamine from the VTA and glutamate (a dopamine driver) from the hippocampus, amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex. Subsequently, the NAc projects GABA signals to an area termed the ventral pallidum (VP). The region is a relay station in the limbic loop of the basal ganglia, critical for motivation, behavior, emotions and the “Feel Good” response. This defined system of the brain is involved in all addictions –substance, and non –substance related. In 1995, our laboratory coined the term “Reward Deficiency Syndrome” (RDS) to describe genetic and epigenetic induced hypodopaminergia in the “Brain Reward Cascade” that contribute to addiction and compulsive behaviors 3,6,41. Furthermore, ordinary “liking” of something, or pure pleasure, is represented by small regions mainly in the limbic system (old reptilian part of the brain). These may be part of larger neural circuits. In Latin, hedus is the term for “sweet”; and in Greek, hodone is the term for “pleasure.” Thus, the word Hedonic is now referring to various subcomponents of pleasure: some associated with purely sensory and others with more complex emotions involving morals, aesthetics, and social interactions. The capacity to have pleasure is part of being healthy and may even extend life, especially if linked to optimism as a dopaminergic response 42. Psychiatric illness often includes symptoms of an abnormal inability to experience pleasure, referred to as anhedonia. A negative feeling state is called dysphoria, which can consist of many emotions such as pain, depression, anxiety, fear, and disgust. Previously many scientists used animal research to uncover the complex mechanisms of pleasure, liking, motivation and even emotions like panic and fear, as discussed above 43. However, as a significant amount of related research about the specific brain regions of pleasure/reward circuitry has been derived from invasive studies of animals, these cannot be directly compared with subjective states experienced by humans. In an attempt to resolve the controversy regarding the causal contributions of mesolimbic dopamine systems to reward, we have previously evaluated the three-main competing explanatory categories: “liking,” “learning,” and “wanting” 3. That is, dopamine may mediate (a) liking: the hedonic impact of reward, (b) learning: learned predictions about rewarding effects, or (c) wanting: the pursuit of rewards by attributing incentive salience to reward-related stimuli 44. We have evaluated these hypotheses, especially as they relate to the RDS, and we find that the incentive salience or “wanting” hypothesis of dopaminergic functioning is supported by a majority of the scientific evidence. Various neuroimaging studies have shown that anticipated behaviors such as sex and gaming, delicious foods and drugs of abuse all affect brain regions associated with reward networks, and may not be unidirectional. Drugs of abuse enhance dopamine signaling which sensitizes mesolimbic brain mechanisms that apparently evolved explicitly to attribute incentive salience to various rewards 45. Addictive substances are voluntarily self-administered, and they enhance (directly or indirectly) dopaminergic synaptic function in the NAc. This activation of the brain reward networks (producing the ecstatic “high” that users seek). Although these circuits were initially thought to encode a set point of hedonic tone, it is now being considered to be far more complicated in function, also encoding attention, reward expectancy, disconfirmation of reward expectancy, and incentive motivation 46. The argument about addiction as a disease may be confused with a predisposition to substance and nonsubstance rewards relative to the extreme effect of drugs of abuse on brain neurochemistry. The former sets up an individual to be at high risk through both genetic polymorphisms in reward genes as well as harmful epigenetic insult. Some Psychologists, even with all the data, still infer that addiction is not a disease 47. Elevated stress levels, together with polymorphisms (genetic variations) of various dopaminergic genes and the genes related to other neurotransmitters (and their genetic variants), and may have an additive effect on vulnerability to various addictions 48. In this regard, Vanyukov, et al. 48 suggested based on review that whereas the gateway hypothesis does not specify mechanistic connections between “stages,” and does not extend to the risks for addictions the concept of common liability to addictions may be more parsimonious. The latter theory is grounded in genetic theory and supported by data identifying common sources of variation in the risk for specific addictions (e.g., RDS). This commonality has identifiable neurobiological substrate and plausible evolutionary explanations. Over many years the controversy of dopamine involvement in especially “pleasure” has led to confusion concerning separating motivation from actual pleasure (wanting versus liking) 49. We take the position that animal studies cannot provide real clinical information as described by self-reports in humans. As mentioned earlier and in the abstract, on November 23rd, 2017, evidence for our concerns was discovered 50 In essence, although nonhuman primate brains are similar to our own, the disparity between other primates and those of human cognitive abilities tells us that surface similarity is not the whole story. Sousa et al. 50 small case found various differentially expressed genes, to associate with pleasure related systems. Furthermore, the dopaminergic interneurons located in the human neocortex were absent from the neocortex of nonhuman African apes. Such differences in neuronal transcriptional programs may underlie a variety of neurodevelopmental disorders. In simpler terms, the system controls the production of dopamine, a chemical messenger that plays a significant role in pleasure and rewards. The senior author, Dr. Nenad Sestan from Yale, stated: “Humans have evolved a dopamine system that is different than the one in chimpanzees.” This may explain why the behavior of humans is so unique from that of non-human primates, even though our brains are so surprisingly similar, Sestan said: “It might also shed light on why people are vulnerable to mental disorders such as autism (possibly even addiction).” Remarkably, this research finding emerged from an extensive, multicenter collaboration to compare the brains across several species. These researchers examined 247 specimens of neural tissue from six humans, five chimpanzees, and five macaque monkeys. Moreover, these investigators analyzed which genes were turned on or off in 16 regions of the brain. While the differences among species were subtle, there was a remarkable contrast in the neocortices, specifically in an area of the brain that is much more developed in humans than in chimpanzees. In fact, these researchers found that a gene called tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) for the enzyme, responsible for the production of dopamine, was expressed in the neocortex of humans, but not chimpanzees. As discussed earlier, dopamine is best known for its essential role within the brain’s reward system; the very system that responds to everything from sex, to gambling, to food, and to addictive drugs. However, dopamine also assists in regulating emotional responses, memory, and movement. Notably, abnormal dopamine levels have been linked to disorders including Parkinson’s, schizophrenia and spectrum disorders such as autism and addiction or RDS. Nora Volkow, the director of NIDA, pointed out that one alluring possibility is that the neurotransmitter dopamine plays a substantial role in humans’ ability to pursue various rewards that are perhaps months or even years away in the future. This same idea has been suggested by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University. Dr. Sapolsky cited evidence that dopamine levels rise dramatically in humans when we anticipate potential rewards that are uncertain and even far off in our futures, such as retirement or even the possible alterlife. This may explain what often motivates people to work for things that have no apparent short-term benefit 51. In similar work, Volkow and Bale 52 proposed a model in which dopamine can favor NOW processes through phasic signaling in reward circuits or LATER processes through tonic signaling in control circuits. Specifically, they suggest that through its modulation of the orbitofrontal cortex, which processes salience attribution, dopamine also enables shilting from NOW to LATER, while its modulation of the insula, which processes interoceptive information, influences the probability of selecting NOW versus LATER actions based on an individual’s physiological state. This hypothesis further supports the concept that disruptions along these circuits contribute to diverse pathologies, including obesity and addiction or RDS. 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. 3 No intent-foresight distinction – if I foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of my deliberation since its intrinsic to my action 4 TJFs – Consequentialism is key to economic and welfare debates. Semple PhD 19 JD, PhD, Associate Professor @ Uni of Windsor Faculty of Law "Welfare-Consequentialism and Social Policy." IPPA, Publication date unstated, author accessed sources June 9, 2019, https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5cfaa3d488f4a.pdf JW Utilitarianism is the oldest form of welfare-consequentialism. It holds that the moral value of an outcome is determined by simply adding up the numbers for the individuals affected. If operating on utilitarian welfare-consequentialism, the government would decide to create camp on the beach. An alternative is the prioritarian social welfare function. This gives weight to equality as well as the maximization of welfare. Different prioritarian functions reflect different degrees of aversion to inequality.10 Some prioritarian social welfare functions would tell the castaways’ government to choose the second option (making camp on the plateau), because welfare is more evenly divided even though its sum is smaller. Regardless of whether the function is utilitarian or prioritarian, it is not the votes or choices of the residents that make one policy option morally preferable to the other. Instead, it is the fact that aggregate welfare, under the chosen function, is higher under one than it is under the other. Unlike self-interested voting, the social welfare function takes into account how large a difference a policy choice would make to each individual affected by it. 1.1 Applications and Core Commitments The social welfare function, or the closely related cost-benefit analysis approach, is often applied to evaluate economic policies involving taxation and risk regulation.11 For example, banning a potentially dangerous chemical is considered a good policy if the positive effects of doing so on individuals’ welfare (e.g. better health and longer lives) can be expected to exceed the negative effects on individuals’ welfare (e.g. lost jobs for those who manufacture the chemical, and the removal of a market option for its consumers).12 However, the approach can, in principle, be applied to any public policy question. A proposed residential apartment building would be allowed in a low-density area, despite neighbourhood opposition, if the welfare benefits of the development to prospective residents, local merchants, and other affected parties would outweigh the welfare losses to the neighbours and any other affected parties.13 A military intervention to depose a foreign dictator would be justified if the aggregate expected benefits to the dictator’s potential victims, and expected security benefits for individuals elsewhere, would outweigh welfare costs such as the loss of life in combat and financial cost of the intervention. Outweighs – a) predictability – authors assume util when writing articles, b) topic lit – non-util fws don’t engage with the core lit, c) TJFs first – theory determines substance, fairness is a gateway issue to the ballot and education is the impact.
Impact calc – extinction outweighs A Reversibility- it forecloses the alternative because we can’t improve society if we are all dead B Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessities C Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical D Uncertainty- if we’re unsure about which interpretation of the world is true, we should preserve the world to keep debating about it
The standard is maximizing expected well-being – to clarify, saving lives. Calc indicts don't link – my framework evaluates offense – our impacts are bad because as far as we know, it would cause suffering.
1~ Death outweighs— A~ Agents can't act if they fear for their bodily security—my framework constrains every NC and K and B~ It's the worst form of evil:
Paterson 3 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics. Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82
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.
4~ Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they're our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actions
Moen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic AND notion of legal standing will outstrip the power relations that ground Pettit's theory.
Impact calc –
1~ Extinction outweighs:
A~ Reversibility- it forecloses the alternative because we can't improve society if we are all dead
B~ Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities
C~ Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical
D~ Uncertainty- if we're unsure about which interpretation of the world is true, we should preserve the world to keep debating about it
12/18/21
3 - NC - Util v3
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep PS | Judge: Andrew Qin, Joseph Georges, angela zhong
FW
The standard is maximizing expected well-being – to clarify, saving lives. Calc indicts don't link – my framework evaluates offense – our impacts are bad because as far as we know, it would cause suffering.
1~ Death outweighs— A~ Agents can't act if they fear for their bodily security—my framework constrains every NC and K and B~ It's the worst form of evil:
Paterson 3 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics. Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82
3~ Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they're our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actions
Moen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic AND notion of legal standing will outstrip the power relations that ground Pettit's theory.
Impact calc –
1~ Extinction outweighs:
A~ Reversibility- it forecloses the alternative because we can't improve society if we are all dead
B~ Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities
C~ Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical
D~ Uncertainty- if we're unsure about which interpretation of the world is true, we should preserve the world to keep debating about it
12/26/21
3 - NC - Util v4
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Yoyo Lei
FW
The standard is maximizing expected well-being. Calc indicts don't link—our impacts are bad because as far as we know, it would cause suffering.
1~ 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.
2~ Pleasure and pain are the starting point for moral reasoning—they're our most baseline desires and the only things that explain the intrinsic value of objects or actions
Moen 16, Ole Martin (PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo). "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267. Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic AND notion of legal standing will outstrip the power relations that ground Pettit's theory.
4~ Only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to meet up for lunch, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to not kill. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain why the second one is much worse than the first which is the most intuitive. Outweighs—a) parsimony—metaphysics relies on long chains of questionable claims that make conclusions less likely b) hijacks—intuitions are inevitable since even every framework must take some unjustified assumption as a starting point.
5~ You don't get the choice to determine death for other people.
Paterson 2 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) In determining whether a life is worth living or not, attention should be focused AND is essentially left up to the individual to determine for himself or herself.
Impact calc –
1~ Extinction outweighs:
A~ Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities
B~ Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical
C~ Mathematically outweighs.
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.
2~ Calc indicts fail –
A~ Ethics- it would indict everything since they use events to understand how their ethics have worked
B~ Reciprocity- they are NIBs that create a 2:1 skew where I have to answer them to access offense while they only have to win one
C~ Internalism- asking why we value pain and pleasure is nonsensical cuz the answer is intrinsic since we just do, which means we still prefer hedonism despite shortcomings.
1/28/22
3 - NC - Util v5
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake LD | Judge: Kwudjwa Osei Framework The standard is maximizing expected well-being, or hedonistic act utilitarianism. 1 Neuroscience- pleasure and pain are intrinsic value and disvalue – everything else regresses. Blum et al. 18 Kenneth Blum, 1Department of Psychiatry, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton VA Medical Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA 2Department of Psychiatry, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA 5Department of Precision Medicine, Geneus Health LLC, San Antonio, TX, USA 6Department of Addiction Research and Therapy, Nupathways Inc., Innsbrook, MO, USA 7Department of Clinical Neurology, Path Foundation, New York, NY, USA 8Division of Neuroscience-Based Addiction Therapy, The Shores Treatment and Recovery Center, Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA 9Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary 10Division of Addiction Research, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC. North Kingston, RI, USA 11Victory Nutrition International, Lederach, PA., USA 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA, Marjorie Gondré-Lewis, 12National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Washington, DC., USA 13Departments of Anatomy and Psychiatry, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC US, Bruce Steinberg, 4Division of Applied Clinical Research and Education, Dominion Diagnostics, LLC, North Kingstown, RI, USA, Igor Elman, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, David Baron, 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Edward J Modestino, 14Department of Psychology, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA, Rajendra D Badgaiyan, 15Department Psychiatry, Cooper University School of Medicine, Camden, NJ, USA, Mark S Gold 16Department of Psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, "Our evolved unique pleasure circuit makes humans different from apes: Reconsideration of data derived from animal studies", U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 February 2018, accessed: 19 August 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446569/~~ R.S. Pleasure is not only one of the three primary reward functions but it also defines AND these circuits contribute to diverse pathologies, including obesity and addiction or RDS.
Impact calc – 1 Extinction outweighs – A Reversibility- it forecloses the alternative because we can't improve society if we are all dead B Structural violence- death causes suffering because people can't get access to resources and basic necessities C Objectivity- body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethical D Uncertainty- if we're unsure about which interpretation of the world is true, we should preserve the world to keep debating about it
2/20/22
JanFeb - CP - ADR
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Yoyo Lei
CP
Text – States should implement cooperative active debris removal measures aimed at mitigating debris from mega-constellations.
Hardy 20, Brian Patrick. Long-term effects of satellite megaconstellations on the debris environment in low earth orbit. Diss. 2020. (Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)Elmer The results of this thesis demonstrate that satellite megaconstellations have the potential to leave a AND be a viable mitigation strategy for megaconstellations with sub-optimal PMD rates.
1/28/22
JanFeb - CP - Advantage CP vs Mega Constellations
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
CP
Text – States should
Implement cooperative active debris removal measures aimed at mitigating debris from mega-constellations.
Implement collision avoidance systems
Increase cooperation and communication between private companies and space agencies
Substantially increase their research and deployment of a solar radiation management policy.
Hardy 20, Brian Patrick. Long-term effects of satellite megaconstellations on the debris environment in low earth orbit. Diss. 2020. (Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)Elmer The results of this thesis demonstrate that satellite megaconstellations have the potential to leave a AND be a viable mitigation strategy for megaconstellations with sub-optimal PMD rates.
Fourth plank solves warming and avoids the Impact Turns since it doesn't reduce Carbon Emissions
Bickel 13, J. Eric. "Climate engineering and climate tipping-point scenarios." Environment Systems and Decisions 33.1 (2013): 152-167. (PhD in Engineering-Economic Systems @ Stanford University, Associate Professor @ the University of Texas at Austin School of Engineering)Elmer SRM differs from air capture in that it seeks to reverse the energy imbalance caused AND conceivably cool the climate to near its preindustrial state on the 2050 timescale."
1AC Boley and Byers concludes ADR and communication solves but just needs more states to follow on which the counterplan does best – we read blue
Boley and Byers 21 ~Aaron C., Department of Physics and Astronomy @ The University of British Columbia*, and Michael, Department of Political Science @ The University of British Columbia; Published: 20 May 2021; Scientific Reports; "Satellite mega-constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth," https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7~~ brett Companies are placing satellites into orbit at an unprecedented frequency to build 'mega- AND to evaluating the effects of the construction and maintenance of any one constellation.
1AR theory is skewed towards the aff – a) the 2NR must cover substance and over-cover theory, since they get the collapse and persuasive spin advantage of the 3min 2AR, b) their responses to my counter interp will be new, which means 1AR theory necessitates intervention. Implications – a) reject 1AR theory since it can't be a legitimate check for abuse, b) drop the arg to minimize the chance the round is decided unfairly
4/9/22
JanFeb - CP - Antineutrino Detectors
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 6 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
CP
Counterplan Text: States ought to place antineutrino detectors, streaming live data to and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, within 10 meters of all nuclear reactors.
That solves Neutrinos – the technology already exists, it just needs to be implemented
Scoles 20, Sarah. "Neutrino Detectors Could Be Used to Spot Nuclear Rogues" Wired, Oct 6, 2020, https://www.wired.com/story/neutrino-detectors-could-be-used-to-spot-nuclear-rogues/ TG These days, Svoboda and a growing number of colleagues are interested in using signals AND dozens of miles away, revealing its activities without being right next door.
That solves prolif detection and is a sufficient distance – we've inserted lines they highlighted in 1AC Lee – it also concedes squo solves cuz the existence of the tech is a deterrent which is a reason to negate on presumption
1AC Lee 20 Thomas Lee "Can tiny, invisible particles help stop the spread of nuclear weapons?" https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2020/03/can-tiny-invisible-particles-help-stop-the-spread-of-nuclear-weapons/ (Associate Adjunct Professor, Research Scientist Operations and IT Management.)Elmer The neutrino detection technology could offer a solution. Optimizing reactor power levels to AND reality could prove to be a powerful deterrent to nuclear proliferation in itself.
2/20/22
JanFeb - CP - Co-op vs China
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: David Dosch cites broken
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
That solves the aff – it addresses shared anxieties while building political consensus
Gardiner 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 to 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 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. 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 development AND over-exploitation of resources and environmental havoc (Fountain, 2002) .
12/18/21
JanFeb - CP - Global ConCon v2
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Eric He
CP
Text: States ought to call a global constitutional convention and establish a constitution reflecting intergenerational concern with exclusive authority to end private appropriation of outer space through the production of space debris by private entities and bind participating bodies to its result.
The CP applies intergenerational equity to future generations – that's better than trying to decide now whether the plan is beneficial across deep time – every country would say yes.
Tan 2k ~David Tan, LL.M., Harvard Law School; LL.B. (Hons), B.Com., University of Melbourne. Former Tutor in Law, Trinity College, University of Melbourne, "Towards a New Regime for the Protection of Outer Space as the "Province of All Mankind"," 2000, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114andcontext=yjil~~ Edith Brown Weiss has advanced the theory of "intergenerational equity," which provides for AND to achieve an acceptable balance between pollution control and freedom of space exploration.
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.
Discounting future generations causes extinction – only formalizing a mechanism to weight their concerns solves
Jones et al 18 ~Natalie Jones, Mark O'Brien, and Thomas Ryan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making. Futures Volume 102, September 2018, Pages 153-163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301179~~#sec0005~~ Global catastrophic and existential risks pose central challenges for intergenerational justice and the structure of AND context. This policy paper hopes to fill this gap in the literature.
1/16/22
JanFeb - CP - Global ConCon v3
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 6 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
CP
CP Text: States ought to call a global constitutional convention and establish a constitution reflecting intergenerational concern with exclusive authority to ban appropriation of lunar heritage sites by private entities and bind participating bodies to its result.
ESPEC—they didn't—that's key to preserving neg flex to generate disad links and competition—anything else justifies infinite shiftiness that decks ground. Stick them with the counterplan—if they contest links, drop them.
Normal means is not done through new decision-making bodies—we read green.
1AC Harrington 19 – Andrea J. "Preserving Humanity's Heritage in Space: Fifty Years after Apollo 11 and beyond." J. Air L. and Com. 84 (2019): 299. (Associate Professor and Director of the Schriever Space Scholars at USAF Air Command and Staff College)Elmer Recut Miller The issue of humanity's cultural heritage in space has arisen as one of many unanswered AND destruction, loss, or private appropriation of our cultural heritage in space.
The CP applies intergenerational equity to future generations – every country would say yes.
Tan 2K ~David Tan, LL.M., Harvard Law School; LL.B. (Hons), B.Com., University of Melbourne. Former Tutor in Law, Trinity College, University of Melbourne, "Towards a New Regime for the Protection of Outer Space as the "Province of All Mankind"," 2000, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114andcontext=yjil~~ Edith Brown Weiss has advanced the theory of "intergenerational equity," which provides for AND to achieve an acceptable balance between pollution control and freedom of space exploration.
Discounting future generations causes extinction – only formalizing a mechanism to weight their concerns solves
Jones et al 18 ~Natalie Jones, Mark O'Brien, and Thomas Ryan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making. Futures Volume 102, September 2018, Pages 153-163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301179~~#sec0005~~ Global catastrophic and existential risks pose central challenges for intergenerational justice and the structure of AND context. This policy paper hopes to fill this gap in the literature.
Counterplan text: The Committee on the Peaceful use of Outer Space ought to establish an application system for property rights on celestial bodies. Applications and approval of property rights should be granted upon the condition of
Open disclosure of data gathered in the exploration of a celestial body
Applications must be publicly announced
Property Rights will be made tradeable between private entities
Property Rights will be set to expire on the conclusion of a successful extraction mission
Private Entities will only be allowed one property right grant per celestial body and cannot have more than one grant at a time
The counterplan establishes international norms for safe extraction of resources on celestial bodies while increasing RandD in outer space.
Steffen 21 ~Olaf Steffen, Olaf is a scientist at the Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Sytems at the German Aerospace Center. 12-2-2021, "Explore to Exploit: A Data-Centred Approach to Space Mining Regulation," Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Systems, German Aerospace Center, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964621000515 accessed 12/12/21~ Adam 4. The data-centred approach to space mining regulation 4.1. AND of a NEO's orbit to intercept Earth by changing its mass through mining.
Space mining fails now due to profitability and unsafe tech which only the cp solves
Steffen 21 ~Olaf Steffen, Olaf is a scientist at the Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Sytems at the German Aerospace Center. 12-2-2021, "Explore to Exploit: A Data-Centred Approach to Space Mining Regulation," Institute of Composite Structures and Adaptive Systems, German Aerospace Center, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964621000515 accessed 12/12/21~ Adam The data-driven mechanism also addresses another potential risk of an emerging space- AND selection of such missions' targets, they could gain powerful positions of influence.
1/15/22
JanFeb - CP - Kamooalewa
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 4 | Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: David Kilpatrick
DA
CP Text: Space faring nations should establish a multilateral agreement that restricts asteroid mining done by private entities except for on asteroid Kamo’oalewa.
Kamo’oalewa is NEO asteroid comprised of lunar material
Devlin 21 Hannah Devlin is the Guardian's science correspondent, having previously been science editor of the Times. “Near-Earth asteroid is a fragment from the moon, say scientists.” November 11, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/nov/11/near-earth-asteroid-is-a-fragment-from-the-moon-say-scientists Scientists have identified what appears to be a small chunk of the AND "Wow it is real,’” Sharkey said. “It’s easier to explain with the moon than other ideas.”
Space based solar power is being developed and transitions to 100 clean energy, but lunar regolith is key
O’Neill 13 Ian O'Neill is a media relations specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California. Prior to joining JPL, he served as editor for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific‘s Mercury magazine and Mercury Online and contributed articles to a number of other publications, including Space.com, Space.com, Live Science, HISTORY.com, Scientific American. Ian holds a Ph.D in solar physics and a master's degree in planetary and space physics. “How to Turn the Moon Into a Giant Space Solar Power Hub.” December 3, 2013. https://www.space.com/23810-moon-luna-belt-solar-power-idea.html When it comes to space and energy, we need to think big. AND itself off nuclear energy — it doesn't get more "alternative" than this.
Warming causes extinction and guarantees every other impact
Spratt and Dunplop 19, David Spratt Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne, and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action and Ian Dunlop member of the Club of Rome. Formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading 1998-2000, “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach,” Breakthrough - National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019, pg. 8-10, beckert. Brackets in original text 2020–2030: Policy-makers fail to act on evidence that the current Paris Agreement path — in which global human AND goal is not safe for a number of Earth System elements, including Arctic sea-ice, West Antarctica and coral reefs.
1/29/22
JanFeb - CP - Market Share Liability
Tournament: Lexington | Round: 5 | Opponent: Olympia OE | Judge: Eric He
CP
Text: States ought to impose a multilateral agreement imposing a per-launch fee system paid by launching states, with proceeds devoted exclusively to financing the cost of orbital debris remediation, including untrackable debris. The United States should provide a substantial one-time monetary contribution to initiate the fund.
Counterplan solves debris remediation better and faster
Meghan R. Plantz 12. J.D., University of Georgia, 2012, "Orbital Debris: Out of Space," 40 GA. J. INT'L and COMP. L. 585 Many theorists propose that the international community either update and enhance or change space law AND to impose a launch fee system and create a global space remediation fund.
1/16/22
JanFeb - CP - Moon Base
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 6 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
CP
CP Text: Private entities ought to cooperate to appropriate the moon by building a moon base with the purpose of scientific studies of Lunar Heritage.
That solves 100 of the aff but maintains mutual exclusivity by allowing appropriation of the moon.
Private entities are critical to building the moon base – otherwise it's technologically infeasible.
Stuart 20 – Colin is an Astronomy Author and Speaker. 12/22/20. ~Science Focus, "How to build a Moon base," https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-to-build-a-moon-base/~~ Justin Stage 1: Travelling to the Moon First things first: the less you AND , leaving anyone in a colony there at least six months from help.
2/20/22
JanFeb - CP - Space Elevators
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Rishi Mukherjee
CP
Text – Private Appropriation of Outer Space except for Space Elevators is 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 law~Elmer An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a cable with one end attached AND 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 AND 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 AND 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. AND enormous amount can be done. There is still plenty more to achieve.
CP Text: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust except for Space-Based Solar Power. Companies investing in Space-Based Solar Power should commit to at least 40 of the Energy Produced to be distributed to developing and marginalized communities.
Space-Based Solar Power constitutes Appropriation.
Matignon 19 Louis De Gouyon Matignon 4-15-2019 "THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHINESE SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER STATIONS" https://www.spacelegalissues.com/the-legal-status-of-chinese-space-based-solar-power-stations/ (PhD in space law)Elmer Near-Earth space is formed of different orbital layers. Terrestrial orbits are limited AND case with satellite navigation, satellite television and commercial satellite imagery for example.
Chinese Private Companies are pursuing Space-Based Solar Power.
McKirdy and Fang 19 Euan McKirdy and Nanlin Fang 3-3-2019 "Space power plant and a mission to Mars: China's new plans to conquer the final frontier" https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/asia/china-plans-solar-power-in-space-intl/index.html (Journalists at CNN)Elmer China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation plans to launch small solar satellites that can harness AND plant would be ready for commercial use, the Chinese media report said.
Space-Based Solar Power solves Paris Goals that checks back existential Warming.
Ravisetti 21 Monisha Ravisetti 11-8-2021 "Harvesting energy with space solar panels could power the Earth 24/7" https://www.cnet.com/news/harvesting-energy-with-space-solar-panels-could-power-the-earth-247/ (Science Writer at CNet)Elmer Solar power has been a key part of humanity's clean energy repertoire. We spread AND unlimited supply of renewable energy from the sun might help us do that.
SPSB is the only thing capable of ending Energy Poverty – just one country getting to it would have universal benefits – it's a real material impact that millions of people face every day and isn't being focused on by the media enough
Aleksey Shtivelman 12, Boston JD, "Solar Power Satellites: The Right To A Spot In The World's Highest Parking Lot," https://www.bu.edu/jostl/files/2015/02/Shtivelman_web.pdf *edited for gendered language Rather than spending millions on land-based solar AND are used for commercial power production and cannot be converted into weapons. 139
CP solves the Case – they're indicting things like Exploration and Colonization which have no benefits other than Accumulation. Space-Based Solar Power occupies just one section of Space, doesn't expand, and the CP has distributive effects that avoids Space as a "new frontier for capitalism" BUT rather uses it as a tool to combat material issues like Warming and Energy Poverty.
2/20/22
JanFeb - CP - Unilateral Mining
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
CP
Counterplan text: Space faring states should unilaterally restrict asteroid mining done by private entities.
Unilateral declarations of intent create legally binding international obligations in space arms control – solves perception and defuses security dilemmas.
Jinyuan Su 17, Professor, School of Law, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Erin J.C. Arsenault Fellow, Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 1/1/17, "Space Arms Control: Lex Lata and Currently Active Proposals," Asian Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, p. 61-93 In another initiative parallel to the previous two, in October 2004, at the AND positive atmosphere, the unilateral commitments help to dilute the mistrust between states.
2/19/22
JanFeb - DA - BRI vs China
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: David Dosch cites broken
4/10/22
JanFeb - DA - Hypersonics
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
DA
New Mega-Constellations are key to hypersonic defense and early warning systems.
Dangwal 21 ~Ashish Dangwal, Ashish Dangwal holds a Master's degree in East-Asian studies and has a deep interest in Defence and Geopolitics related issues. He is interested in the impact of technology on foreign policy objectives as well as geopolitical operationality in the Indo-Pacific. Contact: ashishmichel@gmail.com, 12-9-2021, Latest Asian, Middle-East, EurAsian, Indian News, "US Plans To Build 'Constellation Of Satellites' To Identify, Detect and Track Russian, Chinese Hypersonic Missiles", https://eurasiantimes.com/us-plans-to-build-constellation-of-satellites-russian-chinese-hypersonic-missiles/?amp accessed on 12-22-2021~ Adam The Pentagon's Space Development Agency may acquire new satellites as part of a global missile AND Northrop Grumman ~NOC~–is to establish effective targeting of advanced missiles.
Hypersonics cause nuclear war
Lamrani 18 ~Omar Lamrani, Omar Lamrani is a reporter that focuses on air power, naval strategy, technology, logistics and military doctrine for a number of regions, including the Middle East and Asia. He studied international relations at Clark University and holds a master's degree from the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, where his thesis centered on Chinese military doctrine and the balance of power in the Western Pacific. Mr. Lamrani previously worked as an intern with the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, where he was assigned to the Afghanistan desk. 2-20-2018, accessed on 12-17-2020, Stratfor, "An Arms Race Toward Global Instability", https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/arms-race-toward-global-instability~~ Adam Further complicating matters are hypersonic missiles. The missiles' high speed — at least five AND the United States on one side and Russia and China on the other.
Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 "How to help people millions of years from now" https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions AND far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol' do-goodery.
Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 "How to help people millions of years from now" https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions AND far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol' do-goodery.
1/15/22
JanFeb - DA - Korean Diplomatic Capital
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
DA
Deployment of diplomatic capital key to Korean peninsula denuclearization.
Titli Basu 2/8, Titli Basu is Associate Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. 2/8/22. ~IDSA. "Japan and US–China Strategic Competition: Alliances and Alignments," https://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/japan-and-us-china-strategic-competition-tbasu-080222~~ Justin The year 2022 may shake up East Asia as the regional security situation remains fluid AND , which remained strained in recent years owing to escalating tensions over history issues
Space multilateralism drains diplomatic capital.
Joan Johnson-Freese 17 – Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, 2017, Space Warfare in the 21st Century: Arming the Heavens, p. 173-174 Proactive policymaking takes commitment, manpower, and money. A quick look at the AND February 2016 meeting of the LTS Working Group by one country, Russia.
North Korean diplomacy key to solve nuclear war.
Doug Bandow 19, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 04/15/2019, "Trump's Remarkable Diplomatic Efforts in North Korea," Cato, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-remarkable-diplomatic-efforts-north-korea There is another reason to pursue diplomacy so long as there is any chance of AND operation and the potential for third-party intervention, especially by China."
2/19/22
JanFeb - DA - Mining Good
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 4 | Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: David Kilpatrick
DA
Commercial mining solves extinction from scarcity, climate, terror, war, and disease.
Pelton 17—(Director Emeritus of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, PHD in IR from Georgetown).. Pelton, Joseph N. 2017. The New Gold Rush: The Riches of Space Beckon! Springer. Accessed 8/30/19. Are We Humans Doomed to Extinction? What will we do when Earth's resources are AND global space agreements, are part of this new pathway to the future.
Resource scarcity coming now and causes extinction—asteroid mining is the only way to solve
Crombrugghe 18 – Guerric, Business Development Manager Brussels, Brussels Capital Region, "Asteroid mining as a necessary answer to mineral scarcity", LinkedIn, 1/11/2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/asteroid-mining-necessary-answer-mineral-scarcity-de-crombrugghe We need minerals, and we always will. Yet, our reserves are finite AND meantime, we might want to consume existing resources a bit more efficiently.
Resource Shortages Exacerbate Conflict
Wingo 13 - Dennis Wingo, Former CTO of the Orbital Recovery Corporation, Founder and CEO of Skycorp Inc, and Greentrail Energy Inc., Co-Founder and CTO of Orbital Recovery Inc. Leader of NASA's the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP), First in history to rescue and operate a spacecraft (ISEE-3) in interplanetary space, and University of Alabama in Huntsville Consortium for Materials Development in Space Researcher At University of Alabama in Huntsville Consortium for Materials Development in Space "Commentary | The Inevitability of Extraterrestrial Mining", Space News, 7/29/2013, https://spacenews.com/36511the-inevitability-of-extraterrestrial-mining/ I am honored to provide the counterpoint to my esteemed colleague Ambassador Roger Harrison's negative AND the continued health of the American economy and the future of all mankind.
Those Conflicts go Nuclear
Klare 13 – Michael T., professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, DC, " How Resource Scarcity and Climate Change Could Produce a Global Explosion", The Nation, 4/22/2013, https://www.thenation.com/article/how-resource-scarcity-and-climate-change-could-produce-global-explosion/ JHW Resource Shortages and Resource Wars Start with one simple given: the prospect of future AND conflict. We are now heading directly into a resource-shock world.
Mining solves Water Shortages
Kean 15 Sam Kean December 2015 "The End of Thirst" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-end-of-thirst/413176/ (writer based in Washington DC for the Atlantic)Elmer Imagine turning on your tap and seeing no water come out. Or looking down AND down here on the ground, but up among the stars as well.
Indo-Pak Water War goes Nuclear
Klare 20 — Five College professor emeritus of peace and world security studies, and director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS), holds a B.A. and M.A. from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute. (Michael; Published: 2020; "Climate Change, Water Scarcity, and the Potential for Interstate Conflict in South Asia"; Journal of Strategic Security 13, No. 4, Pages 109-122; https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.13.4.1826 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol13/iss4/8)//CYang Interstate conflict over water might occur, the ICA indicated, when several states rely AND global agriculture—an outcome with enormous implications for American national security.30
1/29/22
JanFeb - DA - Mining Good v2
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
DA
Commercial mining solves extinction from scarcity, climate, terror, war, and disease.
Pelton 17—(Director Emeritus of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, PHD in IR from Georgetown).. Pelton, Joseph N. 2017. The New Gold Rush: The Riches of Space Beckon! Springer. Accessed 8/30/19. Are We Humans Doomed to Extinction? What will we do when Earth's resources are AND global space agreements, are part of this new pathway to the future.
Resource scarcity coming now and causes extinction—asteroid mining is the only way to solve
Crombrugghe 18 – Guerric, Business Development Manager Brussels, Brussels Capital Region, "Asteroid mining as a necessary answer to mineral scarcity", LinkedIn, 1/11/2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/asteroid-mining-necessary-answer-mineral-scarcity-de-crombrugghe We need minerals, and we always will. Yet, our reserves are finite AND meantime, we might want to consume existing resources a bit more efficiently.
Resource shortages go nuclear – conceding 1AC Woolridge 9
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-comingSJJK Space exploration is back. after decades of disappointment, a combination of better technology AND , we'll need new agreements to facilitate private investment and ensure international cooperation.
Private sector mining overcomes all extinction scenarios.
Pelton 17—Director Emeritus of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, PHD in IR from Georgetown.. Pelton, Joseph N. 2017. The New Gold Rush: The Riches of Space Beckon! Springer. Accessed 8/30/19. Are We Humans Doomed to Extinction? What will we do when Earth's resources are AND global space agreements, are part of this new pathway to the future.
2/20/22
JanFeb - DA - Mining Good vs China
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: David Dosch cites broken
Stuart 17 Jill Stuart 1-27-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty has been remarkably successful – but is it fit for the modern age?" https://theconversation.com/the-outer-space-treaty-has-been-remarkably-successful-but-is-it-fit-for-the-modern-age-71381 (Visiting Fellow, Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science)Elmer Space exploration is governed by a complex series of international treaties and agreements which have AND of the treaty in mind, rather than seeking to undermine it entirely.
Normal Means requires amending the OST – that causes a runaway amendment convention.
Vedda 18 Jim Vedda May 2018 https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/OuterSpaceTreaty.pdf (senior policy analyst, PhD in Political Science at University of Florida)Elmer Treaty Amendment. If decisionmakers conclude that the Outer Space Treaty isn't broken but is AND assigned to development of a well-reasoned and comprehensive national space strategy.
That wrecks the OST.
Melroy 17 Pamela Melroy 5-23-2017 "Reopening the American Frontier: Exploring How the Outer Space Treaty Will Impact American Commerce and Settlement in Space" https://www.hsdl.org/?abstractanddid=807259 (Retired NASA Astronaut)Elmer There are many exciting activities and proposals in commercial space. With respect to the AND appropriate and what is not. Without them, the dialog becomes chaos.
Credible OST solves Space War.
Johnson 17 Christopher Johnson 1-23-2017 "The Outer Space Treaty at 50", http://thespacereview.com/article/3155/1 (graduate of Leiden University's International Institute of Air and Space Law and the International Space University)Elmer As mentioned, many of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty were borrowed from AND are the rich long-term gains resulting from the Outer Space Treaty.
Space War cause Nuclear War.
Gallagher 15 "Antisatellite warfare without nuclear risk: A mirage" http://thebulletin.org/space-weapons-and-risk-nuclear-exchanges8346 (interim director of the Center for International and Security Studies in Maryland, previous Executive Director of the Clinton Administration's CTBT Treaty Committee, an arms control specialist at the State Dept., and a faculty member at Wesleyan)Elmer In recent decades, however, as space-based reconnaissance, communication, and AND scenarios that are used to justify the development and use of antisatellite weapons.
1/15/22
JanFeb - DA - Precision Ag
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Yoyo Lei
DA
Starlink is key to Precision Ag – key to food sustainability and increasing food supply to account for exponential population growth.
Greensight 21 3-15-2021 "Can Starlink Save the World by Connecting Farms?" https://www.greensightag.com/logbook/can-starlink-save-the-world-by-connecting-farms/ (Data Management Consulting Firm)Elmer GreenSight innovates in a number of different areas, but one of the areas we AND advancing access to precision agriculture globally and contributing to solving global food challenges.
Cribb 19 Julian Cribb 8-23-2019 "Food or War" https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/food-or-war/hotspots-for-food-conflict-in-the-twentyfirst-century/1CD674412E09B8E6F325C9C0A0A6778A (principal of Julian Cribb and Associates who provide specialist consultancy in the communication of science, agriculture, food, mining, energy and the environment. , His published work includes over 8000 articles, 3000 media releases and eight books. He has received 32 awards for journalism.)Elmer Future Food Wars The mounting threat to world peace posed by a food, climate AND only affects the Africans. The consequences will impact everyone on the planet.
1/28/22
JanFeb - DA - Putin Lashout
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 6 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
DA
The plan is perceived as a claim to sovereignty that violates international space law – scares Russia – their evidence.
1AC Fessl 19 – Sophie Fessl, PhD King's College London, BA Oxford, 7/10/19 ~JSTOR Daily, "Should the Moon Landing Site Be a National Historic Landmark?" https://daily.jstor.org/should-the-moon-landing-site-be-a-national-historic-landmark/~~ Justin But how to preserve and protect human artifacts on the moon? In 1999, AND U.S.-licensed missions to adhere to NASA's guidelines from 2011.
Putin has banked his prestige off of appropriation of the moon – the plan's unilateral claim to sovereignty is a shock to dreams of hegemony.
Whittington 20 – Mark, Published a political study of space exploration entitled Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars and Beyond. He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues, 9/6/20 ~The Hill, "Russia makes bid to become a space power with Luna-25 mission to the moon," https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/515117-russia-makes-bid-to-become-a-space-power-with-luna-25-mission-to-the-moon~~ Justin Scientific American recently reported that Russia is making progress on its long-planned- AND . All of the landers will carry NASA and commercial payloads and instruments.
That triggers lashout – extinction.
Gressel 16 ~Gustav Acting Director and a senior policy fellow with the Wider Europe Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations' Berlin office, European Council on Foreign Relations, "The dangerous decade: Russia-NATO relations 2014 to 2024", July 2016, https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_dangerous_decade_russia_nato_relations_2014_to_2024~~ The domestic logic of confrontation The Russian economy hit a structural crisis in 2011, AND The West, and particularly Europe, needs to prepare for these contingencies.
Fred Krupp et al. 19. Nathaniel Keohane, and Eric Pooley. *President of Environmental Defense Fund, a United States-based nonprofit environmental advocacy group. Vice president for international climate at the Environmental Defense Fund. He used to be in academia at Yale University and served in the White House as special assistant to President Barack Obama. *Senior Vice President, Strategy and Communications at the Environmental Defense Fund. 4-1-2019. "Less Than Zero: Can Carbon-Removal Technologies Curb Climate Change?" Foreign Affairs. https://search-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2186099162/594BA6C689D844ABPQ/13?accountid=14749/. When it comes to generating support for climate policy, a warranted sense of alarm AND and the transformative power of human ingenuity offers an endless source of hope.
2~ Capitalism is sustainable - Tech Innovation drives dematerialization that makes Cap Sustainable AND solves warming
McAfee 19, Andrew. More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next. Scribner, 2019. Props to DML for finding. (Cofounder and codirector of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy at the MIT Sloan School of Management, former professor at Harvard Business School)Elmer The decreases in resource use, pollution, and other exploitations of the earth cataloged AND generates virtually no waste and doesn't require massive molds, it accelerates dematerialization.
3~ Capitalist Peace Theory is True – it's anti-Imperialist.
Mousseau 19, Michael. "The end of war: How a robust marketplace and liberal hegemony are leading to perpetual world peace." International Security 44.1 (2019): 160-196. Props to DML for finding. (Professor in the School of Politics, Security, and International Affairs at the University of Central Florida)Elmer Is war becoming obsolete? There is wide agreement among scholars that war has been AND member (currently the United States) to preserve and protect the global order
4~ Yes Transition Wars and they cause Extinction
Nyquist 5 J.R. Nyquist 2-4-2005 "The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash" www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html (renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations)Elmer Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President AND A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs.
Turns their impact – the transition magnifies every flaw of capitalism
Avrum 97 Mark Avrum 1997 http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/ "Nanotechnology and International Security" (Graduate Research Assistant – Center for Superconductivity Research at the University of Maryland)Elmer With molecular manufacturing, international trade in both raw materials and finished goods can be AND political loyalty of clients might imply reversion to some form of nationalistic imperialism.
Regulated cap solves everything better.
Mark Budolfson 21. PhD in Philosophy. Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and Justice at the Rutgers School for Public Health and Center for Population-Level Bioethics. "Arguments for Well-Regulated Capitalism, and Implications for Global Ethics, Food, Environment, Climate Change, and Beyond". Ethics and International Affairs. 5-7-2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000083 However, things are more complicated than the arguments above would suggest, and the AND that capitalism can create and direct, to escape from extreme poverty.21
Every metric flows neg—-the world is getting better.
—poverty is declining rapidly post-Industrial revolution —other metrics are positive: health, education, moral expansion —tech innovation is increasing —we're cognitively biased toward belief in collapse
AND . No wonder, then, that our lives are better for it.
Growth is sustainable and solves a laundry list of threats.
BUT, degrowth hammers the third-world and causes global poverty to skyrocket. Growth can't be decoupled from quality of life.
Piper 21, *Kelsey Piper, a Staff Writer for Vox's new vertical; (August 3rd, 2021,"Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?", https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth) The tension at the heart of degrowth: Can we fix global poverty without economic AND in the quality and quantity of the goods and services that people need.
Revolutions turn:
It results in state sabotage.
Emily Schepers 17. Veteran civil and immigrant rights activist, doctorate in cultural anthropology from Northwestern University, September 18, 2017. "Agents provocateurs and the manipulation of the radical left." https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/agents-provocateurs-and-the-manipulation-of-the-radical-left/. Right now, there is considerable discussion going on about the best way to do AND . Let us work on that basis and avoid tactics that undermine it.
Military cracks down and obliterates the ALT.
Kevin Flaherty 05, B.A. in International Relations from the University of South California; Cryptogon, "Militant Electronic Piracy: Non-Violent Insurgency Tactics Against the American Corporate State," Cryptogon, 2005, http://cryptogon.com/docs/pirate_insurgency.html/ Any violent insurgency against the American Corporate State is sure to fail and will only AND eventually compromised/turned, arrested or executed. The ACS wins again.
Reject monocausal analyses.
David Martin Jones 15, Visiting Professor in the Department of War Studies, King's College London and Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Queensland; and M.L.R. Smith, Professor of Strategic Theory in the Department of War Studies, King's College London, September 2015, "Return to reason: reviving political realism in western foreign policy," International Affairs, Vol. 91, No. 5, p. 933-952 The dissolution of any prospect for enduring stability, whether in the Middle East, AND explanation that magically reveals a hidden interconnection between very different issues and conflicts.
1/15/22
JanFeb - Impact Turn - Capitalism v2
Tournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Rishi Mukherjee
Cap Good
Capitalism is sustainable - Tech Innovation drives dematerialization that makes Cap Sustainable AND solves warming and alternatives don't solve
McAfee 19, Andrew. More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next. Scribner, 2019. Props to DML for finding. (Cofounder and codirector of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy at the MIT Sloan School of Management, former professor at Harvard Business School)Elmer The decreases in resource use, pollution, and other exploitations of the earth cataloged AND generates virtually no waste and doesn't require massive molds, it accelerates dematerialization.
Capitalist Peace Theory is True – it's anti-Imperialist.
Mousseau 19, Michael. "The end of war: How a robust marketplace and liberal hegemony are leading to perpetual world peace." International Security 44.1 (2019): 160-196. Props to DML for finding. (Professor in the School of Politics, Security, and International Affairs at the University of Central Florida)Elmer Is war becoming obsolete? There is wide agreement among scholars that war has been AND member (currently the United States) to preserve and protect the global order
Yes Transition Wars and they cause Extinction
Nyquist 5 J.R. Nyquist 2-4-2005 "The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash" www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html (renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations)Elmer Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President AND A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs.
Turns their impact – the transition magnifies every flaw of capitalism
Avrum 97 Mark Avrum 1997 http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/ "Nanotechnology and International Security" (Graduate Research Assistant – Center for Superconductivity Research at the University of Maryland)Elmer With molecular manufacturing, international trade in both raw materials and finished goods can be AND political loyalty of clients might imply reversion to some form of nationalistic imperialism.
Degrowth hammers the third-world and causes global poverty to skyrocket. Growth can't be decoupled from quality of life.
Piper 21, *Kelsey Piper, a Staff Writer for Vox's new vertical; (August 3rd, 2021,"Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?", https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth) The tension at the heart of degrowth: Can we fix global poverty without economic AND in the quality and quantity of the goods and services that people need.
Every metric flows neg—-the world is getting better.
—poverty is declining rapidly post-Industrial revolution —other metrics are positive: health, education, moral expansion —tech innovation is increasing —we're cognitively biased toward belief in collapse
AND . No wonder, then, that our lives are better for it.
No transition—-centuries of history prove societies can't and won't shift fast enough.
Rogelio Luque-Lora 21, MSci in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge, M.A. in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge, "Engaging imaginaries, rejecting utopias: The case for technological progress and political realism to sustain material wellbeing," Political Geography, Vol. 86, 02-21-2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102358 Gómez-Baggethun is right to suspect that the modern myth of progress has theological AND to convert to an ecological worldview and to radically adjust their institutions accordingly.
Capitalism's not monolithic—-regs solve their impacts and preserve positives.
Laura Tyson and Lenny Mendonca 21. Laura Tyson, former chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers, is Professor of the Graduate School at the Haas School of Business and Chair of the Blum Center Board of Trustees at the University of California, Berkeley. Lenny Mendonca, Senior Partner Emeritus at McKinsey and Company, is a former chief economic and business adviser to Governor Gavin Newsom of California and chair of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. "Capitalism We Can Believe In". Project Syndicate. 1-15-2021. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/what-to-do-about-declining-trust-in-us-capitalism-by-laura-tyson-and-lenny-mendonca-2021-01 Growing distrust of capitalism follows from its failure to address major socioeconomic challenges, not AND successful variants of market capitalism in Europe and California point the way forward.
The barrier to climate progress is political, not material—-the transition would be so politically disastrous that it'd irreversibly set back political progress against climate change. Speed is key, so only existing dematerialization and renewables can solve in time.
Klein 8/31/21, Opinion Writer at the New York Times, former Founder of Vox, and author of "Why We're Polarized" (Ezra, "Transcript: Ezra Klein Answers Listener Questions" from 'The Ezra Klein Show' podcast, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-ask-me-anything.html, Accessed 09-1-2021) But now let me talk about degrowth more in the terms of it is a AND . But I understand its appeal. I just don't understand its politics.
Capitalism is sustainable - Tech Innovation drives dematerialization that makes Cap Sustainable AND solves warming and alternatives don't solve
McAfee 19, Andrew. More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next. Scribner, 2019. Props to DML for finding. (Cofounder and codirector of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy at the MIT Sloan School of Management, former professor at Harvard Business School)Elmer The decreases in resource use, pollution, and other exploitations of the earth cataloged AND generates virtually no waste and doesn't require massive molds, it accelerates dematerialization.
Seriously, we'll do the math and insert charts
Hausfather 21 – a climate scientist and energy systems analyst whose research focuses on observational temperature records, climate models, and mitigation technologies. He spent 10 years working as a data scientist and entrepreneur in the cleantech sector, where he was the lead data scientist at Essess, the chief scientist at C3.ai, and the cofounder and chief scientist of Efficiency 2.0. He also worked as a research scientist with Berkeley Earth, was the senior climate analyst at Project Drawdown, and the US analyst for Carbon Brief. He has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and a PhD in climate science from the University of California, Berkeley. (Zeke, "Absolute Decoupling of Economic Growth and Emissions in 32 Countries," Breakthrough Institute, 4-6-2021, https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/absolute-decoupling-of-economic-growth-and-emissions-in-32-countries, Accessed 4-11-2021, LASA-SC) / Emissions reductions in the US have been a result of a wide variety AND to Germany's choice to prioritize shutting down nuclear power plants over coal ones.
Physical limits aren't absolute—-laundry list of warrants.
Bailey 18 ~Ronald; February 16; B.A. in Economics from the University of Virginia, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, citing a compilation of interdisciplinary research; Reason, "Is Degrowth the Only Way to Save the World?" https://reason.com/2018/02/16/is-degrowth-the-only-way-to-save-the-wor; RP~ Unless us folks in rich countries drastically reduce our material living standards and distribute most AND —and especially its poor people—need more and faster economic growth.
Economic data restricts biases, promotes critical thinking, and prevents flawed decision-making errors—-rejecting economists plagues public discourse with innumeracy that results in worse outcomes.
Ip 17, *Greg Ip is a Canadian-American journalist, currently the chief economics commentator for The Wall Street Journal. A native of Canada, Ip received a bachelor's degree in economics and journalism from Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario; (August 25th, 2017, "In Defense of the Dismal Science", https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-the-dismal-science-1503679118) Recut Jet But such misjudgments don't justify the charges leveled at economists. Take, for example AND analysis it supplies, but whether there is still sufficient demand for it.
Perceived status threats trigger psychological predispositions that favor authoritarianism – leads to extremism and far right backlash
The aff causes transition wars—- People use low-cost fuels instead of renewables.
Monbiot 11 ~George Monbiot 5-2-11. Fellowship and Professorships, Oxford. "Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project," Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost~~ The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel but too AND over. This is hardly conducive to the rational use of natural assets.
Yes Transition Wars and they cause Extinction
Nyquist 05 J.R. Nyquist 2-4-2005 "The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash" www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html (renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations)Elmer Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President AND A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs.
Cap solves poverty—Collapse is not inevitable and political reform is in the right direction – the alt cedes influence of left.
Teixeira and Judis 17—senior fellow at both The Century Foundation and American Progress AND editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo, former senior writer at The National Journal and a former senior editor at The New Republic (Ruy and John, "Why The Left Will (Eventually) Triumph: An Interview With Ruy Teixeira," http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-left-will-eventually-win-ruy-teixeira, dml) Recut Jet But if you look at other parts of the left, they are actually doing AND is any way of doing that without a new model of economic growth.
Causes mass death—-only capitalism enables a peaceful solution to poverty.
Rainer Zitelmann 21. German historian and author of "The Rich in Public Opinion." "Violence Is History's Great Economic Leveler." National Interest. 6-30-2021. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/violence-historyE28099s-great-economic-leveler-188974 Another question that is all too rarely asked is: What would be the price AND 8 percent, and in 2021 it was only 9.3 percent.
Exploitation is inevitable without markets, but at worst it's only a short run effect of global capitalism. There's a built-in incentive for equality in markets
Karlsson 17 ~Dr Rasmus Karlsson is an Associate Professor in political science. He has published widely on climate mitigation policy, development ethics, and global affairs from an ecomodernist perspective. The Environmental Risks of Incomplete Globalisation. Globalizations, Vol 14, No 4 – 2017. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14747731.2016.1216820?needAccess=true~~ Even if pre-modern human history was essentially defined by poverty, social domination AND value of rising global demand and new export markets is obviously much greater.
US economic strength is an impact filter—-creates a cap on escalation and rules governing emerging tech
Burrows 16 ~Mathew Burrows, Director of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Foresight Initiative, PhD in European History from the University of Cambridge, Appointed Director of the Analysis and Production Staff (APS) in 2010, September 2016, "Global Risks 2035: Mathew J. Burrows Foreword by Brent Scowcroft The Search for a New Normal" Atlantic Council Strategy Papers, http://espas.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/Global_Risks_2035_web_0922.pdf~~ The multilateralist global system that the United States and the West built after the end AND and other allies. In that scenario, conflict would be almost inevitable.
Unregulated emerging tech causes extinction.
Tate et al. 15 – (Jitendra S. Tate, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, M.S. and B.S., Mechanical Engineering; Sergio Espinoza; Davontae Habbit; Craig Hanks; Walk Trybula; Dominick Fazarro; "JOTS v41n1 - Military And National Security Implications Of Nanotechnology"; Virginia Tech University Press; D.A. June 24th 2020, ~Published Spring 2015~; https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v41/v41n1/tate.html)LFS—JCM The purpose of country's armed forces is to provide protection from foreign threats and from AND , the use in society should be delayed for at least a decade.
2/20/22
JanFeb - T - Appropriation
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
T
Interpretation: Appropriation refers to sovereign claims of land.
Melissa J. Durkee 19, J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia, "Interstitial Space Law," Washington University Law Review 97, no. 2 423-482 Those answering this question in the affirmative have access to a strong textual argument. AND , they have no power to confer those rights on their nationals.184
Violation: they only defend asteroid mining which is extraction – those are distinct – prefer rigorous legal analysis.
Wrench 19 – John grew up outside of Ithaca, New York, and received his law degree from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2019. During law school, he served as editor in chief of the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law and was a member of the Federalist Society. John interned in his law school's First Amendment Litigation Clinic and was a judicial extern to the Honorable Paul E. Davison in the Southern District of New York. John graduated from Pace University in 2015 with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Religious Studies. 2019. ~Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, " Non-Appropriation, No Problem: The Outer Space Treaty Is Ready for Asteroid Mining," https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2546andcontext=jil~~ Justin Secondly, even if nations, businesses, and individuals are equally bound by the AND property rights in resources independent from land-ownership, while promoting beneficial use
Standards:
1~ Precision outweighs – non-topical affs violate tournament rules so the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote on them and it controls the internal to pragmatic offense in a question of models because it decks predictable stasis.
2~ Limits – allowing extraction to equate to sovereign claims explodes limits by shifting the debate away from sovereign claims to celestial bodies to permutations of parts of celestial bodies that companies could extract – leads to unbeatable affs that just ban extraction of one resource which the neg can't ever predict. Forcing the affirmative to defend sovereign claims to celestial bodies is net better.
3~ TVA – defend an aff that bans sovereign claims to celestial bodies – solves your offense since you still get property rights fight offense.
DTD – it's a fundamental baseline for debate-ability.
CI- Reasonability is arbitrary and we don't know the brightline while prepping. Collapses since it uses an offense/defense paradigm to win it.
No RVIs- A~ Illogical- you don't win for being fair B~ Encourages baiting theory which proliferates abuse
2/19/22
JanFeb - T - Appropriation vs Mega-Constellations
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
T
Interpretation: Appropriation means use, exploitation, or occupation that is permanent and to the exclusion of others
Babcock 19 Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Cente. Babcock, Hope M. "The Public Trust Doctrine, Outer Space, and the Global Commons: Time to Call Home ET." Syracuse L. Rev. 69 (2019): 191. Article II is one of those succeeding provisions that curtails "the freedom of use AND term use and permanent occupation, to the exclusion of all others."151
Violation: Megaconstellations do not appropriate – reject non-legal interpretations
Johnson 20 ~Chris Johnson is the Space Law Advisor for Secure World Foundation and has nine years of professional experience in international space law and policy. He has authored and co-authored publications on international space law, national space legislation, international cooperation in space, human-robotic cooperative space exploration, and on the societal benefits of space technology for Africa. "The Legal Status of MegaLEO Constellations and Concerns About Appropriation of Large Swaths of Earth Orbit." https://swfound.org/media/206951/johnson2020_referenceworkentry_thelegalstatusofmegaleoconstel.pdf~~ No, This Is Not Impermissible Appropriation An opposite conclusion can also be reasonably arrived AND ? No such intention can be found in the operators of global constellations.
Standards:
1~ Precision outweighs – non-topical affs violate tournament rules so the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote on them and it controls the internal to pragmatic offense in a question of models.
2~ Predictable limits—including temporary occupation is a limits disaster—any aff about a single spaceship, satellite, or weapon would be T because they temporarily occupy space. Limits explodes neg prep and draws unreciprocal lines of debate.
3~ TVA – defend debris like strake – that's what the core concern about megaconstellations are and is permanent.
Paradigm issues:
a~ Topicality is Drop the Debater – it's a fundamental baseline for debate-ability and deters future abuse.
b~ Use Competing Interps – 1~ Topicality is a yes/no question, you can't be reasonably topical and 2~ Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation 3~ Evaluate the theory debate after the 2NR because it ensures reciprocity and removes 2AR sandbagging.
c~ No RVI's - 1~ Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2~ Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3~ Illogical – you shouldn't win for not being abusive.
d~ Fairness is a voter – it's a gateway issue to the ballot.
4/9/22
JanFeb - T - CCC
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 6 | Opponent: Diamond Bar NC | Judge: Truman Le
T
Interpretation: "the appropriation of outer space" is a generic indefinite singular. The aff may not defend a subset of appropriation of outer space by private entities being unjust.
The definite article "the" makes the rez a definite singular – it's generic
CCC n.d. ~Capital Community College, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation.~ "Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers." Capital Community College. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles TG The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective AND former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class.
Violation – they only defend Lunar Heritage Sites
Vote neg:
1~ Limits – they can pick any form of appropriation from internet satellites to asteroid mining to moon basing to Mars colonization and there's no universal disad since they're all different and require different uses space – explodes neg prep and leads to random appropriation of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible. PICs don't solve – it's absurd to say neg potential abuse justifies the aff being flat out not T, which leads to a race towards abuse.
CI- Reasonability is arbitrary and we don't know the brightline while prepping.
No RVIs- A~ Illogical- you don't win for being fair B~ Encourages baiting theory which proliferates abuse
1AR theory is skewed towards the aff – a) the 2NR must cover substance and over-cover theory, since they get the collapse and persuasive spin advantage of the 3min 2AR, b) their responses to my counter interp will be new, which means 1AR theory necessitates intervention. Implications – a) reject 1AR theory since it can't be a legitimate check for abuse, b) drop the arg to minimize the chance the round is decided unfairly, c) use reasonability with a bar of defense or the aff always wins since the 2AR can line by line the whole 2NR without winning real abuse
2/20/22
JanFeb - T - Extra-T vs Mega-Constellations
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AG | Judge: David Herrera
T
Interp: the aff must only defend that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Violation: they're extra topical – A~ They defend public action through states that bans appropriation, B~ They don't specify only private appropriation
1~ Limits – Extra-topicality allows them to tack on infinite planks to artificially improve aff solvency and spike out of DAs, like fiating enforcement or random possible modifications to extraterrestrial property rights. The counter-interp sets a precedent that the scope of aff fiat doesn't have to be bounded by the resolution, which outweighs on magnitude.
4/9/22
JanFeb - T - Extra-T vs Multi-Lateral Mining
Tournament: California Invitational Berkeley Debate | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Raunak Dua
T
1~ Interp – the Affirmative must only defend that appropriation of outer space is unjust.
a~ Private entities are non-governmental.
Dunk 11 Von Der Dunk, Frans G. "1. The Origins Of Authorisation: Article VI Of The Outer Space Treaty And International Space Law." National Space Legislation in Europe. Brill Nijhoff, 2011. 3-28. (University of Nebraska)Elmer 4. Interpreting Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty One main novel feature of AND . Partly, this was the consequence of key principles being left undefined.
b~ Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary.
Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/Elmer Contrary to right and justice, or to the enjoyment of his rights by another, or to the standards of conduct furnished by the laws.
2~ Violation – the Affirmative defends a new, multi-lateral agreement between states which is beyond the scope of the resolution.
3~ Standards – Effects and Extra-T which are voters for predictable limits and ground – allowing the Aff to defend implementation through any number of agreements/mechanisms explodes predictable limits – it shifts the topic to not appropriation good/bad but how we should end it which skews pre-tournament prep. Allowing them to be Effects-T gives them unlimited advantage ground like multilateral governance good or spill-over which skews ground since they could say our mechanism side-steps your links.
4~ TVA – just defend space mining being bad without the multilateral governance part of the plan.
2/19/22
JanFeb - T - Private vs China
Tournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker KB | Judge: David Dosch cites broken
4/10/22
MarApr - T - CCC
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
Theory
Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a democracy in which a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy
'A' is indefinite – means you have to prove the rez in a vacuum, not a particular instance
CCC ("Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers", http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm~~#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective AND the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class
Violation: they spec US
Standards:
1~ Precision – they justify arbitrarily doing away with words in the rez which decks ground and prep. Voter for jurisdiction since the judge can't vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.
2~ Limits – there are hundreds of democracies, but other metrics means even more – explodes limits since there are tons of affs and combinations with different situations i.e. inherency in France is different from the US – there are no DAs that apply to every aff. Some examples are UK, Japan, US, India, etc.
3~ TVA – read your advantage under a whole rez aff. Answers PICs – potential doesn't justify actual abuse and lack of prep means cheaty word and process PICs.
Fairness is a voter and outweighs – debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation.
Drop the debater to deter future abuse.
Competing interps – reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention while encouraging a race to the bottom.
No RVIs – Logic – you don't win for being fair, outweighs since arguments must be logical
3/10/22
MarApr - CP - Solution Journalism
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: SevLak Christopher Lee | Judge: Vincent Liu
CP
CP Text – In a Democracy, a Free Press ought to prioritize Objectivity over Advocacy, except for instances of Solution Journalism.
Advocating for a particular Solution suspends Objectivity in favor of Partial Campaigning.
Salvesen 18, Ingerid. "Should journalists campaign on climate change." (2018). (Ingerid Salvesen has written and produced stories for several of Norway´s biggest newspapers and media companies. Before she chose freelancing she worked, amongst others, as a foreign affairs reporter for the leading Norwegian news agency, NTB, and as a long form writer for the Magazine of Norway´s largest business daily, Dagens Næringsliv. As a journalist, she is interested in questions of environment, migration and inequality, and has increasingly been covering climate change science and politics. Together with two journalist colleagues, she started an independent foreign affairs podcast in 2016 called "Du verden!".)Elmer Still, it was not just climate science generally the Guardian embraced in its campaign AND agency and ownership and something that they can touch", argued James Randerson.
Solution Journalism solves Climate Change and Deforestation.
Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, AND complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.
PICs Negate - the role of the neg is to prove the Aff bad, while the Aff should prove that they're optimal. Every counterplan establishes an opportunity cost to the plan —- any limit on that is arbitrary – Independently, they spec US, so PICs are key neg ground and you don't defend the general principle of the res
3/10/22
MarApr - CP - Solution Journalism v2
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memori Daniel Xu | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
CP
CP Text – In a Democracy, a Free Press ought to prioritize Objectivity over Advocacy, except for instances of Solution Journalism.
Advocating for a particular Solution suspends Objectivity in favor of Partial Campaigning.
Salvesen 18, Ingerid. "Should journalists campaign on climate change." (2018). (Ingerid Salvesen has written and produced stories for several of Norway´s biggest newspapers and media companies. Before she chose freelancing she worked, amongst others, as a foreign affairs reporter for the leading Norwegian news agency, NTB, and as a long form writer for the Magazine of Norway´s largest business daily, Dagens Næringsliv. As a journalist, she is interested in questions of environment, migration and inequality, and has increasingly been covering climate change science and politics. Together with two journalist colleagues, she started an independent foreign affairs podcast in 2016 called "Du verden!".)Elmer Still, it was not just climate science generally the Guardian embraced in its campaign AND agency and ownership and something that they can touch", argued James Randerson.
Solution Journalism solves Climate Change and Deforestation.
Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, AND complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.
3/11/22
MarApr - CP - Transparency
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memori Daniel Xu | Judge: Phoenix Pittman
3
CP
CP Text – In a Democracy, a Free Press ought to develop standards to disclose the ways they collect, report, and disseminate the news and publicly report their sources and state their values and partisan ties.
Transparency in media solves the perception of media bias – robust studies.
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial Ryan Stanicic | Judge: Breigh Plat
1
PIC
Text – A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike except for Air Traffic Controllers.
Low Air Traffic Strikes now due to lack of Right to Strike – the plan reverses penalties.
Youn 19 Soo Youn 1-22-2019 "Why TSA and FAA workers can't just go on strike to end the shutdown" https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-faa-workers-strike-end-shutdown/story?id=60540070 (Freelance Journalist)Elmer All over Twitter and Facebook, citizen commentators are offering a solution to end the AND . But as a union leader, he's well aware of the penalties.
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.
Kampf 20 David Kampf 6-16-2020 "How COVID-19 Could Increase the Risk of War" https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28843/how-covid-19-could-increase-the-risk-of-war (Senior PhD Fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at The Fletcher School)Elmer But that overlooked the ways in which the risk of interstate war was already rising AND deterrents to conflict declining around the world, major wars could soon return.
12/4/21
NovDec - CP - Consult ICJ
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Pratham Soni cites broken, check os
11/6/21
NovDec - CP - Hospitals
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Julian Kuffour cites not working, check os.
11/6/21
NovDec - DA - Innovation
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Julian Kuffour Global tech innovation high now. Mercury News et al 6/4 Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, June 4, 2021, “Editorial: How America can Win the Global Tech War” https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/04/editorial-why-silicon-valley-needs-endless-frontier-bill/gord0 The nation that wins the global tech race will dominate the 21st century. This has been true since the 1800s. Given the rapid pace of innovation and tech’s impact on our economy and defense capabilities in the last decade, there is ample evidence to suggest that the need for investment in tech research and development has never been greater. China has been closing the tech gap in recent years by making bold investments in tech with the intent of overtaking the United States. This is a tech war we cannot afford to lose. It’s imperative that Congress pass the Endless Frontier Act and authorize the biggest RandD tech investment in the United States since the Apollo years. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Santa Clara, made a massive increase in science and technology investment a major part of his platform while campaigning for a seat in Congress in 2016. Now the co-author of the 600-page legislation is on the cusp of pushing through a bipartisan effort that has been years in the making. Khanna and his co-authors, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., are shepherding the bill through the Senate, which is expected to approve it sometime later this month. That would set up a reconciliation debate between the House and Senate that would determine the bill’s final language. The ultimate size of the investment is still very much up in the air. Khanna would like Congress to authorize $100 billion over a five-year period for critical advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other cutting-edge technologies. The Senate is talking of knocking that number down to $50 billion or $75 billion. They should be reminded of China Premier Li Keqiang’s March announcement that China would increase its research and development spending by an additional 7 per year between 2021 and 2025. The United States still outspends China in RandD, spending $612 billion on research and development in 2019, compared to China’s $514 billion. But the gap is narrowing. At the turn of the century, China was only spending $33 billion a year on RandD, while the United States was spending nearly 10 times that amount. The bill would authorize 10 technology hubs throughout the nation designed to help build the infrastructure, manufacturing facilities and workforce needed to help meet the nation’s tech goals. Building tech centers throughout the United States should also create more support for the industry across the country. Tech’s image has taken a beating in recent years — the emergence of the term “Big Tech” is hardly a positive development — and the industry will need all the support it can muster in Congress. The United States continues to have a crucial tech edge over its competitors, most notably China. The only way we can hope to win the 21st century is to make significant investments in research and development that will spark the next wave of innovation.
Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector. Hanasoge 16 Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; “The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn’t specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ Justin The result: Verizon conceded to several of the workers’ demands including hiring union workers, protection against outsourcing of call-center jobs, and employee benefits such as salary hikes and higher pension contributions, among others and thus bringing an end to the strike in June. The repercussion: The strike witnessed several instances of social disorder, violence and clashes, ultimately calling for third party intervention (Secretary of Labor – Thomas Perez) to initiate negotiations between the parties. Also, as a result of the strike, Verizon reported lower than expected revenues in the second quarter of 2016. Trade unions/ labor unions aren’t just this millennia’s product and has been in vogue since times immemorial. Unions, to ensure fairness to the working class, have gone on strike for better working conditions and employee benefits since the industrial revolution and are as strong today as they were last century. With the advent of technology and advancement in artificial intelligence, machines are grabbing the jobs which were once the bastion of the humans. So, questions that arise here are, what relevance do unions have in today’s work scenario? And, are the strikes organized by them avoidable? As long as the concept of labor exists and employees feel that they are not receiving their fair share of dues, unions will exist and thrive. Union protests in most cases cause work stoppages, and in certain cases, disruption of law and order. Like in March 2016, public servants at Federal Government departments across Australia went on a series of strikes over failed pay negotiations, disrupting operations of many government departments for a few days. Besides such direct effects, there are many indirect effects as well such as strained employee relations, slower work processes, lesser productivity and unnecessary legal hassles. Also, union strikes can never be taken too lightly as they have prompted major overturn of decisions, on a few occasions. Besides the Verizon incident that was a crucial example of this, nationwide strikes were witnessed in India in March and April this year when the national government introduced reforms related to the withdrawal regulations and interest rate of employee provident fund, terming it as ‘anti-working class’. This compelled the government to withhold the reform for further review. In France, strike against labor law reforms in May turned violent, resulting in riots and significant damage to property. The incident prompted the government to consider modifications to the proposed reforms. However, aside from employee concerns, such incidents are also determined by a number of other factors such as the country’s political scenario, economy, size of the overall workforce and the unions, history of unionization, labor laws, and culture. For example, it is a popular saying that the French are always on strike as per tradition (although recent statistics indicate a decline in frequency). In a communist government like China, strikes have steadily risen in number. In 2015, China Labor Bulletin (CLB), a Hong Kong-based workers’ rights group recorded 2,700 incidents of strikes and protests, compared to 1,300 incidents in 2014. Most of them have stemmed out of failure by the government to respect the basic rights of employees and address labor concerns. Interestingly, unions have not been able to gain a strong foothold in the IT-BPO industry. While many countries do have a separate union to represent workers from the sector, incidents of strikes like Verizon have been relatively low. However, workplace regulations, in addition to other factors mentioned could be a trigger for such incidents, even if on a smaller scale. For example, a recent survey that interviewed several BPO employees in India revealed that while forming a union in the BPO sector was difficult, irksome workplace regulations such as constant surveillance, irregular timings and incentives have prompted employees to express their resentment in smaller ways such as corruption of internal servers and so on. Such risks are further enhanced in a city like Kolkata, which carries a strong trade union culture.
Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector. Vynck et al 21 Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; “Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech,” The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer/ Justin In response to tech company crackdowns and lobbying, gig workers have shifted their strategy to emphasize building worker-led movements and increasing their ranks, rather than focusing on employment status as the primary goal, says Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The hope is that with President Biden in the White House and an even split in the Senate, legislators will mobilize at the federal level, through the NLRA or bills such as the PRO Act, to recognize gig worker collectives as real unions.
Technological innovation solves every existential threat – which outweighs. Matthews 18 Dylan. Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University. 10-26-2018. "How to help people millions of years from now." Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions of lives rather than the comparatively small number of people alive today. The 7.6 billion people now living, after all, amount to less than 0.003 percent of the population that will live in the future. It’s reasonable to suggest that those quadrillions of future people have, accordingly, hundreds of thousands of times more moral weight than those of us living here today do. That’s the basic argument behind Nick Beckstead’s 2013 Rutgers philosophy dissertation, “On the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future.” It’s a glorious mindfuck of a thesis, not least because Beckstead shows very convincingly that this is a conclusion any plausible moral view would reach. It’s not just something that weird utilitarians have to deal with. And Beckstead, to his considerable credit, walks the walk on this. He works at the Open Philanthropy Project on grants relating to the far future and runs a charitable fund for donors who want to prioritize the far future. And arguments from him and others have turned “long-termism” into a very vibrant, important strand of the effective altruism community. But what does prioritizing the far future even mean? The most literal thing it could mean is preventing human extinction, to ensure that the species persists as long as possible. For the long-term-focused effective altruists I know, that typically means identifying concrete threats to humanity’s continued existence — like unfriendly artificial intelligence, or a pandemic, or global warming/out of control geoengineering — and engaging in activities to prevent that specific eventuality. But in a set of slides he made in 2013, Beckstead makes a compelling case that while that’s certainly part of what caring about the far future entails, approaches that address specific threats to humanity (which he calls “targeted” approaches to the far future) have to complement “broad” approaches, where instead of trying to predict what’s going to kill us all, you just generally try to keep civilization running as best it can, so that it is, as a whole, well-equipped to deal with potential extinction events in the future, not just in 2030 or 2040 but in 3500 or 95000 or even 37 million. In other words, caring about the far future doesn’t mean just paying attention to low-probability risks of total annihilation; it also means acting on pressing needs now. For example: We’re going to be better prepared to prevent extinction from AI or a supervirus or global warming if society as a whole makes a lot of scientific progress. And a significant bottleneck there is that the vast majority of humanity doesn’t get high-enough-quality education to engage in scientific research, if they want to, which reduces the odds that we have enough trained scientists to come up with the breakthroughs we need as a civilization to survive and thrive. So maybe one of the best things we can do for the far future is to improve school systems — here and now — to harness the group economist Raj Chetty calls “lost Einsteins” (potential innovators who are thwarted by poverty and inequality in rich countries) and, more importantly, the hundreds of millions of kids in developing countries dealing with even worse education systems than those in depressed communities in the rich world. What if living ethically for the far future means living ethically now? Beckstead mentions some other broad, or very broad, ideas (these are all his descriptions): Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better-governed countries and be more productive Meta-research: improve incentives and norms in academic work to better advance human knowledge Improve education Advocate for political party X to make future people have values more like political party X ”If you look at these areas (economic growth and technological progress, access to information, individual capability, social coordination, motives) a lot of everyday good works contribute,” Beckstead writes. “An implication of this is that a lot of everyday good works are good from a broad perspective, even though hardly anyone thinks explicitly in terms of far future standards.” Look at those examples again: It’s just a list of what normal altruistically motivated people, not effective altruism folks, generally do. Charities in the US love talking about the lost opportunities for innovation that poverty creates. Lots of smart people who want to make a difference become scientists, or try to work as teachers or on improving education policy, and lord knows there are plenty of people who become political party operatives out of a conviction that the moral consequences of the party’s platform are good. All of which is to say: Maybe effective altruists aren’t that special, or at least maybe we don’t have access to that many specific and weird conclusions about how best to help the world. If the far future is what matters, and generally trying to make the world work better is among the best ways to help the far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery.
1~ Growth is sustainable – we're decoupling BUT degrowth unleashes global disaster.
Bailey 18 ~Ronald; February 16; B.A. in Economics from the University of Virginia, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, citing a compilation of interdisciplinary research; Reason, "Is Degrowth the Only Way to Save the World?" https://reason.com/2018/02/16/is-degrowth-the-only-way-to-save-the-wor; RP~Re-cut by Elmer Unless us folks in rich countries drastically reduce our material living standards and distribute most AND —and especially its poor people—need more and faster economic growth.
Muller 15 ~Director of the Peace Research Institute in Frankfurt, professor of International Relations at Goethe University, 15, Harald, Democracy, Peace, and Security, Lexington Books pp. 44-49~ My own proposal for solving the problem. developed together with my colleague Jonas Wolff AND Administration unambiguously taught us (Gels et al. 2013: Müllcr 2014b).
B. Fractured states, perpetual intervention, and terrorism.
Michael Neiberg 18, Chair of War Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the United States Army War College, 06-19-18, ("Predicting War," Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/predicting-war) Justin Whether influenced by Hollywood or Santa Monica (the California headquarters of RAND), the AND them to survive intellectual challenges like the ones posed by Kaldor and Smith.
DPT is false.
A. Strategic rivalry – stats.
Sambuddha Ghatak 17 – Department of PoliSci, Univeristy of Tennessee, Aaron Gold, Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee and Brandon C. Prins, Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy, Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee ("External Threat and the Limits of Democratic Pacifism," CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PEACE SCIENCE v. 34 n. 2, 2017, p. 151-154) Justin It has become a stylized fact that dyadic democracy lowers the hazard of armed conflict AND appear, then, that there is a limit to the Democratic Peace.
A. Russia backlashes – ensures extinction through nuke war.
Babayan 15 (Nelli Babayan is a senior researcher at the Center for Transnational Relations, Foreign and Security Policy at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universita¨t Berlin. "The return of the empire? Russia's counteraction to transatlantic democracy promotion in its near abroad" Democratization, 2015 Vol. 22, No. 3, 438 – 45) How did Russia counteract EaP in Armenia? Since its independence from the Soviet Union AND type of economic or security pressures employed by Russia in its near abroad.
The transition works and is better.
A. Group constraints.
Rosato 11 PhD, Department of Political Science, The University of Chicago, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The Handbookon the Political Economy of War By Christopher J. Coyne, Rachel L. Mathers There is also little evidence for Ihe other implication of the group constraint claim, AND not clear that group constraints are weaker in autocracies than they are in democracies
B. Risk-aversion.
Rosato 11 PhD, Department of Political Science, The University of Chicago, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The Handbookon the Political Economy of War By Christopher J. Coyne, Rachel L. Mathers In assessing whether leaders are accountable, proponents of the democratic peace focus exclusively on AND that leaders in most nondemocracies are just as accountable as their democratic counterparts.
11/20/21
NovDec - Impact Turn - Democracy v2
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial Ryan Stanicic | Judge: Breigh Plat
Case
1NC – AT: Democracy
Democracy causes war.
A. Backsliding causes great power nuclear war.
Muller 15 ~Director of the Peace Research Institute in Frankfurt, professor of International Relations at Goethe University, 15, Harald, Democracy, Peace, and Security, Lexington Books pp. 44-49~ My own proposal for solving the problem. developed together with my colleague Jonas Wolff AND Administration unambiguously taught us (Gels et al. 2013: Müllcr 2014b).
B. Fractured states, perpetual intervention, and terrorism.
Michael Neiberg 18, Chair of War Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the United States Army War College, 06-19-18, ("Predicting War," Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/predicting-war) Justin Whether influenced by Hollywood or Santa Monica (the California headquarters of RAND), the AND them to survive intellectual challenges like the ones posed by Kaldor and Smith.
Democratic Peace Theory is false.
A. Strategic rivalry – stats.
Sambuddha Ghatak 17 – Department of PoliSci, Univeristy of Tennessee, Aaron Gold, Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee and Brandon C. Prins, Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy, Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee ("External Threat and the Limits of Democratic Pacifism," CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PEACE SCIENCE v. 34 n. 2, 2017, p. 151-154) Justin It has become a stylized fact that dyadic democracy lowers the hazard of armed conflict AND appear, then, that there is a limit to the Democratic Peace.
Pursuit is unsustainable.
A. Russia backlashes – ensures extinction through warming and nuke war.
Babayan 15 (Nelli Babayan is a senior researcher at the Center for Transnational Relations, Foreign and Security Policy at the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universita¨t Berlin. "The return of the empire? Russia's counteraction to transatlantic democracy promotion in its near abroad" Democratization, 2015 Vol. 22, No. 3, 438 – 45) How did Russia counteract EaP in Armenia? Since its independence from the Soviet Union AND type of economic or security pressures employed by Russia in its near abroad.
Technological progress is self sustaining and corrective
Teixeira 3-7-2017 – PhD in sociology @ U W-Madison, author or co-author of six books (Ruy, "The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think," Kindle Reader) Of course, Naam's views may be rejected by some on the left because he AND . Techno-optimism is too important to be left to the libertarians.
The reorientation to technology solves—-all of their offense is about usage, but rejecting tech in its entireity fails
No Extinction from Warming – new studies prove over-hype and tech solves.
Extinction Tipping Point is implausible – we're on track for 3 degrees, not 4-5 degrees Tech and Energy Modernization Solve – Renewable Energy is replacing Fossil Fuels which reduces Climate Mortality by a rate of 5. Nordhaus 20 Ted Nordhaus 1-23-2020 "Ignore the Fake Climate Debate AND fossil fuels. Even nuclear energy has made a modest comeback in Asia.
Variations natural and CO2 effects are overstated.
10,000 years prove natural range of warming No Co2 effect on Warming – No Net Warming despite 8 Percent increase of Co2 Solar Radiation has net greater effect – close correlation over past 150 years Carter AND C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.
CO2 is key to agriculture – stops extinction
Ferrera 14 Peter Ferrera 2-24-2014 "The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming" http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/~~#42cc9ebf8bf0 (J.D. Harvard Law, contributor to Forbes on climate and public policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush)Elmer In addition, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants AND the atmosphere 'greens' the planet and helps feed the growing human population."
Best studies prove
Ballonoff 14, Paul. "A fresh look at climate change." Cato J. 34 (2014): 113. (consultant, international energy development)Elmer While in fact heating has not occurred as the IPCC forecasted, greatly increased global AND 2012). This result is also the opposite of what the IPCC expected.
Food Shortages case Extinction and outweigh
Cribb 10, Julian. The coming famine. University of California Press, 2010. (principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering)Elmer The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more AND changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that power it.
Deaths from cold outweigh heat.
Ridley 13 (Matt, Climate Journalist. "Why Climate Change is Good for the World" October 19th 2013, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/) Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue AND that it's worth it. It may be, but it may not.
Ag Solves – Plants act as carbon sinks which offsets Warming
Harris and Gibbs 21 Nancy Harris and David Gibbs 1-21-2021 "Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year" https://www.wri.org/insights/forests-absorb-twice-much-carbon-they-emit-each-year (Nancy is Research Manager for Global Forest Watch (GFW) within the Food, Forests and Water program. GFW is an international initiative originated by WRI to provide improved data and information about the world's forests by merging the latest technology with on-the-ground partnerships. Nancy works to identify thematic and geographic research priorities for GFW and leads the acquisition and generation of new data and analytical content. She also supports in-country capacity building efforts and collaborates with GFW staff and partners to produce and communicate original, policy-relevant research that further advances global understanding of critical drivers and dynamics of forest change. Prior to joining WRI, Nancy worked as a Carbon and Land Use Specialist in the Ecosystem Services unit of Winrock International, where she managed Winrock's spatial analysis team, published several peer-reviewed papers on forest carbon cycling and spatial modeling of land cover change, and provided technical guidance to multiple stakeholders on climate change mitigation options in the land sector.)Elmer The world is getting a better understanding of just how important forests are in the AND the remaining forests in all three regions is critical to mitigating climate change.
Co2 solves ice age – extinction
Marsh 12 Gerald Marsh 2012 "The Coming of a New Ice Age" http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm (Retired Physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration)Re-cut by Elmer CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing AND well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.
11/20/21
NovDec - K - Anarcho-Blackness
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Javier Navarrete
K
The Atlantic slave trade marked the birth of modern logistics and racial capitalism that was characterized by endless access and a drive for endless control. Even through this global regime of racialized violence, logistics is vulnerable to logisticality – a glitch amongst those in the grips of total access.
Harney et al. 18 Stefano Harney in conversation with Niccolò Cuppini and Mattia Frapporti, September 2018, "Logistics Genealogies: A Dialogue with Stefano Harney," Social Text 136 • Vol. 36, No. 3, DOI 10.1215/01642472-6917802 Recut Justin Modern logistics is a commercial logistics, with all the multiple sources that feed what AND this founding of modern logistics also bequeathed the contemporary world and perpetuates today.
Endless access is inextricably tied to the logic of improvement and the Algorithm of work broadly – the demand for the right to strike is subsumed by logistical capitalism.
Moten and Harney 15 ~Fred, Professor of Performance Studies for the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU, PhD in English from UC Berkeley, 2020 MacArthur Genius Fellow, Stefano, Professor of Strategic Management for the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Singapore Management University, PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, co-founder of Ground Provisions—a curatorial collective, founder of the School for Study—a nomadic study collective, 2015, "Mikey the Rebelator," Performance Research, 20:4, 141-145, DOI: 10.1080/13528165.2015.1071057~ Justin Paolo Friere thought our incompleteness is what gave us hope.7 It is our AND shipped, the more she is held, the more she is handed.
That continuous improvement paradoxically necessitates racialized genocide and ecological destruction.
Moten and Harney 21 ~Fred Moten, Professor of Performance Studies for the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU, PhD in English from UC Berkeley, 2020 MacArthur Genius Fellow, Stefano Harney, Professor of Strategic Management for the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Singapore Management University, PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, co-founder of Ground Provisions—a curatorial collective, founder of the School for Study—a nomadic study collective, 2021, All Incomplete, pp 13-18~ GZ Recut Justin What does it mean to stand for improvement? Or worse, to stand for AND comes from being with, and being of service to, your friends.
We affirm Anarcho-Blackness as an undercommon insurgency.
Bey 20 Marquis Bey, 2020, "Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism," AK Press, SJBE IT IS MISGUIDED TO PRESUME THAT AN ANARCHIC WORLD, A WORLD IN which, AND ethics deem it so, then that is what is to be done.
The Atlantic slave trade marked the birth of modern logistics and racial capitalism that was characterized by endless access and a drive for endless control. Even through this global regime of racialized violence, logistics is vulnerable to logisticality – a glitch amongst those in the grips of total access.
Harney et al. 18 Stefano Harney in conversation with Niccolò Cuppini and Mattia Frapporti, September 2018, "Logistics Genealogies: A Dialogue with Stefano Harney," Social Text 136 • Vol. 36, No. 3, DOI 10.1215/01642472-6917802 Recut Justin Modern logistics is a commercial logistics, with all the multiple sources that feed what AND this founding of modern logistics also bequeathed the contemporary world and perpetuates today.
Endless access is inextricably tied to the logic of improvement and the Algorithm of work broadly – the demand for the right to strike is subsumed by logistical capitalism.
Moten and Harney 15 ~Fred, Professor of Performance Studies for the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU, PhD in English from UC Berkeley, 2020 MacArthur Genius Fellow, Stefano, Professor of Strategic Management for the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Singapore Management University, PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, co-founder of Ground Provisions—a curatorial collective, founder of the School for Study—a nomadic study collective, 2015, "Mikey the Rebelator," Performance Research, 20:4, 141-145, DOI: 10.1080/13528165.2015.1071057~ Justin Paolo Friere thought our incompleteness is what gave us hope.7 It is our AND shipped, the more she is held, the more she is handed.
Specifically, regulating the strike into the right to strike allows the state to dictate revolution – that diffuses planning into policy and subverts radicality.
Crépon 19 Mark Crépon (French philosopher), translated by Micol Bez "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's 'Toward the Critique of Violence,'" Critical Times, 2:2, August 2019, DOI 10.1215/26410478-7708331 Recut Justin If we wish to understand how the question of the right to strike arises for AND and to take responsibility for it that the left regularly loses workers' support.
That continuous improvement paradoxically necessitates racialized genocide and ecological destruction.
Moten and Harney 21 ~Fred Moten, Professor of Performance Studies for the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU, PhD in English from UC Berkeley, 2020 MacArthur Genius Fellow, Stefano Harney, Professor of Strategic Management for the Lee Kong Chian School of Business at Singapore Management University, PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, co-founder of Ground Provisions—a curatorial collective, founder of the School for Study—a nomadic study collective, 2021, All Incomplete, pp 13-18~ GZ Recut Justin What does it mean to stand for improvement? Or worse, to stand for AND comes from being with, and being of service to, your friends.
We affirm Anarcho-Blackness as an undercommon insurgency.
Bey 20 Marquis Bey, 2020, "Anarcho-Blackness: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism," AK Press, SJBE IT IS MISGUIDED TO PRESUME THAT AN ANARCHIC WORLD, A WORLD IN which, AND ethics deem it so, then that is what is to be done.
Our interp is that the affirmative is an object of research and the role of the negative is to test their research model. The ballot should be a question of whose research paradigm is better. It's most logical—Debate is a site of scholarship production, not policymaking 101. They don't get to weigh case since this debate is a question of whether their scholastic endeavor is epistemically accessible. Prefer –
1~ Speech Choice: It's necessary to hold debaters accountable for speech choices – winning the round because "the plan is good" despite relying on antiblack structures is an inherently exclusionary model of debate – o/w's since accessibility is an impact filter to everything. Its under-limiting – you choose the discourse and structure of the 1AC
2~ Real world: The plan never happens but the structure it relies upon is real and the way we research and think about policies informs our ideologies. Fairness claims are self-serving because structural inequalities are inevitable– only our model creates portable skills since it teaches non-black debaters how to represent themselves in an anti-black world.
12/4/21
NovDec - NC - NIBs
Tournament: Longhorn Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: American Heritage Broward Mason Cheng | Judge: Joseph Georges
2
NC
1~ a "used when expressing rates or ratios; in, to, or for each; per" but there are no numbers in the rez
2~ just describes what is "(of treatment) deserved or appropriate in the circumstances" but the rez is aspatial
3~ government is "direction; control; management; rule" but a direction can't perform an action
4~ to is to "expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location)" but the rez doesn't have a location
5~ recognize is to "(of a person presiding at a meeting or debate) call on (someone) to speak" but a right can't speak
6~ an "forming names of organic compounds, chiefly polysaccharides" but a right isn't an organic compound
7~ of "expressing an age" but the rez is atemporal
8~ a worker "a person who produces or achieves a specified thing" but the rez doesn't spec
9~ strike is to "cause (someone) to be in a specified state" but the rez doesn't spec
Advocacy – We affirm a Communicative Strike against the World Computer. To Clarify – this is a PIK out of their demand for Legal Government Recognition.
Solves 100 of their Aff – Ctl-F Test for "Right" or "Recognize" appears four times, none of them in the context of "Legal Recognition", all of their evidence is about the power of current, status quo communicative strikes against the system being good – they have card zero saying Legal Recognition is key to any of that.
The Net Benefit is De-Radicalization. Legally recognizing the right to strike renders it ineffective by de-radicalizing movements, decks solvency and turns case.
White 18 (, A., 2018. Its Own Dubious Battle: The Impossible Defense of an Effective Right to Strike. ~online~ Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. Available at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1261/ ~Accessed 7 November 2021~ Ahmed White is the Nicholas Rosenbaum Professor of Law. Before arriving at the University of Colorado, he was a visitor at Northwestern University in 1999. He has also taught at Villanova Law School. Earlier in his career, Professor White's research focused heavily on the fate of rule of law norms and the rule of law concept in capitalist society, and on the role of criminal law and punishment as mechanisms of social control of the working class. More recently, Professor White's scholarship has taken a more definite historical turn. Much of his work concerns the history of law and labor relations from the early Twentieth Century through the New Deal period, as well as the viability of a functional system of labor rights in liberal society. The subjects of many of his articles over the last decade or so, these themes are central to his recent, acclaimed book, The Last Great Strike: Little Steel, the CIO, and the Struggle for Labor Rights in New Deal America (Oakland: University of California, 2016). They also feature in his second book, tentatively titled The Romance and the Suffering: Law, Violence, and the Tragic Fate of Radical Industrial Unionism in Twentieth Century America, which will be published by the University of California Press in 2021.)-rahulpenu The Wagner Act purported, for the first time in American history, to extend AND a brief conclusion that sums up some of the implications of this argument.
The Aff may be radical in content but the form of it is co-opted into the University – this means their situation of the refusal within debate de-radicalizes their entire method.
Webb, Darren. "Bolt-holes and breathing spaces in the system: On forms of academic resistance (or, can the university be a site of utopian possibility?)." Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 40.2 (2018): 96-118. (Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Sheffield)Elmer It is easy to be seduced by the language of the undercommons. Embodying and AND space of learning, and perhaps not a very important one at that.
11/21/21
NovDec - T - A
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Julian Kuffour Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a just government that recognizes workers’ unconditional right to strike. “A” is an indefinite article that modifies “just government” in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a VACCUM, not in a particular instance CCC (“Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers”, http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm#articles, Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) LHSLA JC/SJ The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective. The is called the definite article because it usually precedes a specific or previously mentioned noun; a and an are called indefinite articles because they are used to refer to something in a less specific manner (an unspecified count noun). These words are also listed among the noun markers or determiners because they are almost invariably followed by a noun (or something else acting as a noun). caution CAUTION! Even after you learn all the principles behind the use of these articles, you will find an abundance of situations where choosing the correct article or choosing whether to use one or not will prove chancy. Icy highways are dangerous. The icy highways are dangerous. And both are correct. The is used with specific nouns. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something that is one of a kind: The moon circles the earth. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something in the abstract: The United States has encouraged the use of the private automobile as opposed to the use of public transit. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something named earlier in the text. (See below..) If you would like help with the distinction between count and non-count nouns, please refer to Count and Non-Count Nouns. We use a before singular count-nouns that begin with consonants (a cow, a barn, a sheep); we use an before singular count-nouns that begin with vowels or vowel-like sounds (an apple, an urban blight, an open door). Words that begin with an h sound often require an a (as in a horse, a history book, a hotel), but if an h-word begins with an actual vowel sound, use an an (as in an hour, an honor). We would say a useful device and a union matter because the u of those words actually sounds like yoo (as opposed, say, to the u of an ugly incident). The same is true of a European and a Euro (because of that consonantal "Yoo" sound). We would say a once-in-a-lifetime experience or a one-time hero because the words once and one begin with a w sound (as if they were spelled wuntz and won). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says that we can use an before an h- word that begins with an unstressed syllable. Thus, we might say an hisTORical moment, but we would say a HIStory book. Many writers would call that an affectation and prefer that we say a historical, but apparently, this choice is a matter of personal taste. For help on using articles with abbreviations and acronyms (a or an FBI agent?), see the section on Abbreviations. First and subsequent reference: When we first refer to something in written text, we often use an indefinite article to modify it. A newspaper has an obligation to seek out and tell the truth. In a subsequent reference to this newspaper, however, we will use the definite article: There are situations, however, when the newspaper must determine whether the public's safety is jeopardized by knowing the truth. Another example: "I'd like a glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put the glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Exception: When a modifier appears between the article and the noun, the subsequent article will continue to be indefinite: "I'd like a big glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put a big glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Generic reference: We can refer to something in a generic way by using any of the three articles. We can do the same thing by omitting the article altogether. A beagle makes a great hunting dog and family companion. An airedale is sometimes a rather skittish animal. The golden retriever is a marvelous pet for children. Irish setters are not the highly intelligent animals they used to be. The difference between the generic indefinite pronoun and the normal indefinite pronoun is that the latter refers to any of that class ("I want to buy a beagle, and any old beagle will do.") whereas the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class Violation: They spec China 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 – the UN says there are 195 recognized governments in the world but even that’s not an agreed upon brightline because there are just governments that are not yet countries – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations incentivinsing more cheaty pics due to lack of ground. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. the need for a right to strike is different in the US than China– means the aff is always more prepared and wins just for speccing. 3 tva – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole res aff, solves all ur offense 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
11/6/21
NovDec - T - Unconditional
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Pratham Soni 1 Interpretation: The affirmative must defend an unconditional right to strike. This means that the Affirmative must defend that anyone regardless of job or occupation has a fundamental right to strike. Merriam Webster ND, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconditionalsid not conditional or limited : ABSOLUTE, UNQUALIFIED 2 Violation – They only grant the Right to Strike to Teachers. That by definition is a condition since they condition the right to strike on a particular occupation. Jensen ’18 (Eric; co-director of the Stanford Rule of Law Program, in collaboration with USAID, The Asia Foundation, and Stanford Law School; April 2018; “Introduction to the Laws of Timor-Leste”; Stanford Law School; https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Timor-Leste-Constitutional-Rights.pdf; Accessed: 10-30-2021; AU) If individuals want to defend their rights at work, the Constitution gives them the right form trade unions and to strike. Individuals are free to join and participate in professional associations that are peaceful. This includes trade unions. Individuals in trade unions have a right to organize their unions independent of the government or their employers. Trade unions should be free and independent, and individuals have the right to set the unions’ internal structure freely. Independent trade unions are important to allow individuals to organize with other workers to collectively defend their interests and their rights. It is important that they are independent so that they reflect the individuals’ interests and not the employer’s or the government’s interests. Individuals have the right to strike. If they feel that their employer is not respecting their rights or interests, employees can refuse to work in protest. The Constitution creates a duty that during a strike, the employer still has to maintain equipment and provide for safety. Individuals’ right to strike is limited by the law. The Constitution states that the right to strike is conditional on the strike being compliant with legal regulations that the government creates. This means that the government can pass laws that limit when and how individuals can exercise their right to strike. The right to strike is important to give individuals the power to defend their labor rights. 3 Standards – a Limits – there are endless conditions the aff can place on the right to strike – i.e based on occupation, national holidays, location of strike, etc. That makes the topic untenable since the Aff can just infinitely specify any condition or permutation of conditions which makes predictable preparation and in-depth clash impossible. b Neg Ground – specifying scenarios lets affs spike out of core, reduction-based disads like Bizcon and Small Businesses. Links are already non-existent on this topic – letting affs impose restrictions on RTS makes it even narrower. 4 TVA – establish a right to strike and read Teacher Unions as an Advantage. 5 Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive. Reject 1ar theory – A They can just blow up dropped arguments in the next speech making it impossible for me to win since I only have the 2n. B Aff gets to speak first and last and gets infinite pre-round prep time; new layers in the 1AR just exacerbate the skew. C Resolvability - every round dissolve to see if the judge thinks the 2ar answers to the 2n are good enough which means they have to inject bias.
11/6/21
SeptOct - CP - AMR
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood AY | Judge: James Stuckert CP: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should allow exclusivity to be extended indefinitely for antimicrobial drugs per Salmieri. The member nations of the World Trade Organization should reduce intellectual property protections for all other medicines by reducing patent protection. Salmieri 18 “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE FREEDOM NEEDED TO SOLVE THE CRISIS OF RESISTANT INFECTIONS” 2018 Gregory Salmieri Ph.D., Philosophy, 2008, University of Pittsburgh; B.A. 2001, The College of New Jersey. Fellow, The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship; Lecturer, Philosophy Department, Rutgers University http://georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/26-1_7-Salmieri.pdf SM This Article suggests another sort of solution, which might be described as a way of incentivizing, by means of a single policy change, both the development of new antimicrobials and the responsible stewardship of these drugs. In its simplest form, the solution is to make the patent terms on these drugs extremely long. The solution has been proposed in this form by Professor John Horowitz and Brian Moehring32 as well as Professor Eric Kades,33 and it is occasionally mentioned in the existing literature.34 However, the case for this broad sort of solution has not been adequately articulated or appreciated. The next part develops the case for a solution of this sort and proposes an alternative version of the solution that is better tailored to the problem and better situated within a theory of IP. Finally, Part III addresses some concerns faced by any solution of this sort. II. THE RIGHT TO THE VALUE CREATED BY RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP Consider how the two-fold problem of growing resistance to our current antimicrobial drugs and the dearth of new antimicrobials under development looks once the specifics are omitted. Forget for a moment that the subject is drugs and microbes—or even inventions as opposed to other sorts of property—and just focus on the structure of the predicament.35 There is a resource of immense value that is being used myopically in a way that destroys existing stocks of the resource, and little is being done to find or develop new stocks of it. This is a pattern one expects to see with unowned resources, but not with owned ones. It is the classic “tragedy of the commons.” When a patch of grazing land is owned in common by everyone—which is just to say it is unowned—everyone has an incentive to make what use of it he can, leading to its overuse and destroying its value. By contrast, an owner can use land judiciously in ways that preserve its value or even to invest in improving the land. This is possible because the owner has exclusive control of the land in the present and therefore can control its uses, and because the owner expects to reap the benefit of the land’s future value. If deeds to land expired after twenty years, with the land reverting to the commons, land owners would have no financial incentives to preserve or enhance the land’s value past the twenty-year window. In this scenario, they could not afford to forgo shortterm gains that came at the expense of the land’s later value. Nor could they afford to invest in long-term improvement projects, such as clearing new land for grazing. This is the predicament with antimicrobial drugs. The profligate use of such drugs in the present destroys their value in a future in which they are unowned. This suggests the simple solution of extending the patent terms for antimicrobial drugs. So long as the drug remains under patent, the patent holder has both an interest in preserving its usefulness and the ability to control its use so as to preserve its value. How long should the patent term be extended? The five years of extra market exclusivity offered by the GAIN Act is calculated with a view to incentivizing companies to invest in developing new drugs. The aim of the present proposal is different. It is to enable the creators of drugs to profitably exercise their rights over the drugs in a manner that preserves the drugs’ effectiveness over time—ideally into the indefinite future. This requires extending the term of exclusivity not just a few years or decades, but as far into the future as there is reason to hope that the drugs’ effectiveness can be maintained. There are various ways in which this suggestion could be further developed; perhaps the most promising is simply to allow patents on antimicrobial drugs to be renewed indefinitely, so long as the drugs’ continued effectiveness can be demonstrated. (How exactly continued effectiveness should be demonstrated is a matter of detail, but likely by showing resistance to be below a certain threshold—perhaps 20 percent—in clinical isolates of interest.36) This would allow for a potentially infinite patent term. “Perpetual patents” have occasionally been proposed, 37 but the lack of a fixed term may do violence to the notion of a patent, so it may be better to conceive of this as a proposal for a new type of IP right that combines features of patents and trademarks. Conceptualizing the relevant right in this way highlights its basis. Like a patent, the right would pertain to an invention and would confer market exclusivity; like a trademark, however, it would be renewable in perpetuity on the grounds that the continued value of the property depends on the owner taking continuous action to maintain it. In the case of the right under consideration, the relevant actions would be those of stewarding the drug in such a manner as to prolong its continued effectiveness in the face of resistance. This new sort of property right could, in principle, be applied to drugs that are already off patent or otherwise ineligible for patent protection. The Chatham House Working Group proposes granting “delinkage rewards” to “firms registering a new antibiotic without patent protection (such as new uses for old drugs),”38 and it may be that the sort of IP protection proposed here would be applicable in such cases as well. If so, the right would be justified by the discovery of the new use for the drug and by the fact that intelligent management of this use is required for it to retain its value. A more difficult case is granting such rights to already known antibiotics that have gone off patent and are now available as generics. Removing these drugs from the commons would make it possible for an owner to profit by stewarding them responsibly. The difficulty here is determining who would own them. Professor Kades considers the possibility of granting a new patent to the original patent holder, but suggests “auctioning the patent rights to such drugs to the highest bidder.”39 Both are plausible solutions. Another option, in light of the issue of cross-resistance (which will be discussed in Part III) would be to apportion the IP rights to the relevant drugs among the owners of other drugs with similar mechanisms of action. Instituting the sort of property right described here (whether or not it is extended to drugs that are currently unpatentable and/or in the public domain) would create an environment in which pharmaceutical companies and other private entities can compete to develop new policies and business models that maximize the total value derived from antimicrobial drugs over time. An important advantage of this proposal is that it does not require policymakers (or authors of law review articles) to know in advance which specific practices would have this auspicious effect. However, some obvious possibilities suggest themselves. Pharmaceutical companies could sell new antimicrobials at a price high enough to make it prohibitive to use them as anything other than treatments of last resort. In addition to extending the drugs’ useful lives, the high prices would compensate for the lower initial volume of sales, and the drugs could eventually be repriced for wider use as second- and then first-line treatments. This repricing would have to be paced both to the growth of the resistant bacterial population and to the development of new antimicrobial drugs to take their predecessors’ place as treatments of last resort. One can imagine many variations of this strategy with different price points and development cycles. Pharmaceutical companies could also extend the effective lifespan of their antimicrobials through contractual arrangements with healthcare providers, which restrict the latter’s use of the drugs to certain protocols or best practices. Imagine the new business practices whereby pharmaceutical companies might profit from drugs that are never or hardly ever used. Licensing plans like the one proposed by Commissioner Gottlieb might be employed in innovative ways.40 For example, healthcare providers or insurance companies might pay a monthly fee for the right to use these drugs should it ever become necessary to do so. Or the various parties might negotiate a system whereby a pharmaceutical company (or an entity that has licensed drugs from multiple companies) charges a fixed price for treatment in accordance with a proprietary antimicrobial protocol that makes use of several of their drugs, specifying which drugs can used under which conditions. The suggestions in the last paragraph all amount to ways in which revenues from the creation of a new drug might be “delinked” from sales volume. In principle, this delinkage could occur simply through market forces, without any additional policy interventions, but since governments and multinational organizations account for most of the spending in the healthcare sector in much of the world, their adopting policies favoring delinkage would likely stimulate the development of these sorts of business models under an IP regime of the sort suggested. Indeed, such delinkage–promoting policies would likely fare better under the proposed IP regime than under the current IP system because, as The Chatham House Working Group observes, “patent expiry” creates some difficulties for such policies. Obligations for responsible use can be carefully crafted and functional when monopoly rights are in place, but are likely to fail once generic antibiotics are introduced upon the termination of the period of exclusivity. Generic manufacturers ordinarily rely on volume-based rewards, and low prices and large volume of sales without appropriate measures to conserve the antibiotics may be an important driver of indiscriminate use and resistance. A sustainable system will require controls on market entry after termination of the patent, and regulation of the way the generic products are marketed and prescribed.41 It bears emphasizing at this point that the best stewardship policies for antimicrobial drugs remain to be discovered. The Chatham House Working Group report (quoted several times above) represents the cutting edge of research on this issue, and it offers precious few details about the new “delinked” business model it says “needs to be developed.” Successful business models are rarely if ever specified from on high by public policy makers. Securing a long-range IP right to antimicrobial drugs would create the conditions in which the healthcare industry as a whole could invest the resources required to discover the practices, protocols, and business models that maximize the value of these substances. In addition, the ability to capture this value as profit would create an incentive to develop new drugs as needed. IP rights, and patents in particular, are sometimes understood as bargains between creators and society. The proposal under consideration grants a lot more to the developers of any new antimicrobial drugs than they are granted under current law, but it asks a lot of these developers in return—for it requires them to become good stewards of their drugs by discovering and implementing the means necessary to preserve the drugs’ value over time, so that the maximum potential benefit from them is realized.42 This is work that needs to be done by someone, and the sort of IP regime proposed here would enable those people and firms most qualified to do this work to profit by doing it. This leads to a deeper point. Although IP rights are often understood as special privileges granted by government and justified on utilitarian grounds, the dominant strand in early American jurisprudence, taking its inspiration from John Locke, regards all property rights as securing to a creator the fruits of his productive work.43 Among the reasons why patents and copyrights are finite in duration, whereas rights to chattels or land can be passed on from generation to generation indefinitely, is that chattels and land generally need to be maintained in order to retain their economic value over time, whereas this is not true of the economic value of an artwork or a method.44 But the case under consideration reveals that the continued economic value of certain methods does depend on an ongoing process of intelligent management by which one uses the method sparingly. It is this very fact that (according to the argument of this Part) justifies extending the IP right to the drug indefinitely. This raises the question of whether there are structurally similar cases in other fields, where the continued commercial value of a potential invention depends on its judicious use. If so, it may be that there are other values being destroyed (or never created) because of tragedies of the commons that could be rectified by policies analogous to the one suggested here.
Even if the aff incentivizes innovation they cannot incentivize innovation in anti-microbial research – the problem right now is lack of profit incentives for innovation and responsible stewardship. Salmieri 18 “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE FREEDOM NEEDED TO SOLVE THE CRISIS OF RESISTANT INFECTIONS” 2018 Gregory Salmieri Ph.D., Philosophy, 2008, University of Pittsburgh; B.A. 2001, The College of New Jersey. Fellow, The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship; Lecturer, Philosophy Department, Rutgers University http://georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/26-1_7-Salmieri.pdf SM According to a 2013 report by the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”), two million people in the United States annually contract infections that are “resistant to one or more of the antibiotics designed to treat those infections”; the result is at least 23,000 deaths and (direct and indirect) economic losses that have been estimated at $55 billion (in 2008 dollars).2 The United Kingdom’s Antimicrobial Resistance Review estimates that, worldwide, there will be as many as ten million deaths annually from such infections by 2050.3 A 2017 report by the World Bank Group anticipates the financial toll: In the optimistic case of low AMR antimicrobial resistance impacts, the simulations found that, by 2050, annual global gross domestic product (GDP) would likely fall by 1.1 percent, relative to a base-case scenario with no AMR effects; the GDP shortfall would exceed $1 trillion annually after 2030. In the high AMR-impact scenario, the world will lose 3.8 percent of its annual GDP by 2050, with an annual shortfall of $3.4 trillion by 2030.4 There are two related aspects to this crisis: (1) bacterial populations are evolving resistance to the antimicrobial drugs currently in use, and (2) there are few new drugs in the developmental pipeline that promise to be effective against these bacteria.5 It is widely understood that both aspects are caused or exacerbated by the economic incentives faced by the pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare industry more broadly.6 The eventual obsolescence of any conventional antimicrobial drug is inherent in its use, but it is hastened when the drug is liberally prescribed.7 Such liberal prescription is driven by incentives for both physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Patients’ expectations for prompt treatment sometimes lead doctors to prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics in cases where it would be more prudent to await testing and prescribe a more targeted antimicrobial—or to prescribe antibiotics for viral infections where they are ineffective. 8 Pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to sell as much volume as possible in the period between the drug’s Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval and the end of its twenty-year patent term. The problem of liberal prescription of antibiotics has been much discussed in medical and policy circles. 9 It is widely agreed that an important part of the solution is antimicrobial stewardship, which the Infectious Diseases Society of America defines as follows: Antimicrobial stewardship refers to coordinated interventions designed to improve and measure the appropriate use of antimicrobials by promoting the selection of the optimal antimicrobial drug regimen, dose, duration of therapy, and route of administration. The major objectives of antimicrobial stewardship are to achieve optimal clinical outcomes related to antimicrobial use, to minimize toxicity and other adverse events, to reduce the costs of health care for infections, and to limit the selection for antimicrobial resistant strains.10 The most dramatic outcome thus far of the policy discussion, in the United States at least, is that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services updated its “Conditions of Participation.”11 These updated “Conditions of Participation” (issued as a result of an executive order by President Obama in 2014) require all hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid to establish and maintain “antibiotic stewardship programs.”12 These conditions are already in effect for acute care hospitals and are expected to go into effect generally by the end of 2018.13 An additional incentive for too liberal use of antibiotics comes from outside of the healthcare industry. These drugs are useful as a growth promoter for livestock, and it has been shown that this use can lead to the growth of resistant bacteria, which can then infect human beings. 14 Such use of most antibiotics is now banned in the European Union member states, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Korea.15 In the United States and Canada, regulatory agencies have issued guidelines against this use of antibiotics that are deemed medically important.16 The second aspect of the crisis is the dearth of new antimicrobial drugs in development. A 2017 World Health Organization report projects that approximately ten new antibiotics and biologicals will be approved in the next ten years but warns that “these new treatments will add little to the already existing arsenal” because most of them will be “modifications of existing antibiotic classes,” which are “only short term solutions as they usually cannot overcome multiple existing resistance mechanisms and do not control the growing number of pan-resistant pathogens.”17 Few new antimicrobial drugs are in development because there is a low return on the investment needed to discover such drugs and shepherd them through the approval process. This is the reason why Aventis, Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Proctor and Gamble, Roche, and Wyeth all “greatly curtailed, wholly eliminated or spun off their antibacterial research” between 1999 and 2003.18 The already low return on investment will dwindle as stewardship guidelines are adopted and the drugs are prescribed more judiciously.19 The Chatham House Working Group on New Antibiotic Business Models summarizes the situation thusly: Today, few large pharmaceutical companies retain active antibacterial drug discovery programmes. One reason is that it is scientifically challenging to discover new antibiotics that are active against the antibiotic-resistant bacterial species of current clinical concern. Another core issue, however, is diminishing economic incentives. Increasingly, there are calls to conserve the use of truly novel antibiotics, which might limit sales severely and discourage greater investment in RandD. Meanwhile, unless they see evidence of superiority, healthcare payers are unwilling to pay prices that would directly support the cost of development, provide a competitive return on investment and reflect the value to society of maintaining a portfolio of antibiotics adequate to overcome growing resistance. A principal reason for this is the mismatch between the current business model for drugs and combating resistance. The current business model requires high levels of antibiotic use in order to recover the costs of RandD. But mitigating the spread of resistance demands just the opposite: restrictions on the use of antibiotics. Economic incentives play a key role in the global resistance problem, leading to overuse of these precious drugs at the same time as companies are abandoning the field; and the increasing restrictions on inappropriate use of antibiotics make them relatively unprofitable compared with other disease areas.20 Evolving AMR superbugs trigger extinction. Srivatsa ’17 (Kadiyali; specialist in pediatric intensive and critical care medicine in the UK. Invented the bacterial identification tool ‘MAYA’; 1-12-2017; "Superbug Pandemics and How to Prevent Them", American Interest; https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/01/12/superbug-pandemics-and-how-to-prevent-them/, Accessed: 8-31-2021; AU) It is by now no secret that the human species is locked in a race of its own making with “superbugs.” Indeed, if popular science fiction is a measure of awareness, the theme has pervaded English-language literature from Michael Crichton’s 1969 Andromeda Strain all the way to Emily St. John Mandel’s 2014 Station Eleven and beyond. By a combination of massive inadvertence and what can only be called stupidity, we must now invent new and effective antibiotics faster than deadly bacteria evolve—and regrettably, they are rapidly doing so with our help. I do not exclude the possibility that bad actors might deliberately engineer deadly superbugs.1 But even if that does not happen, humanity faces an existential threat largely of its own making in the absence of malign intentions. As threats go, this one is entirely predictable. The concept of a “black swan,” Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s term for low-probability but high-impact events, has become widely known in recent years. Taleb did not invent the concept; he only gave it a catchy name to help mainly business executives who know little of statistics or probability. Many have embraced the “black swan” label the way children embrace holiday gifts, which are often bobbles of little value, except to them. But the threat of inadvertent pandemics is not a “black swan” because its probability is not low. If one likes catchy labels, it better fits the term “gray rhino,” which, explains Michele Wucker, is a high-probability, high-impact event that people manage to ignore anyway for a raft of social-psychological reasons.2 A pandemic is a quintessential gray rhino, for it is no longer a matter of if but of when it will challenge us—and of how prepared we are to deal with it when it happens. We have certainly been warned. The curse we have created was understood as a possibility from the very outset, when seventy years ago Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, predicted antibiotic resistance. When interviewed for a 2015 article, “The Most Predictable Disaster in the History of the Human Race,” Bill Gates pointed out that one of the costliest disasters of the 20th century, worse even than World War I, was the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19. As the author of the article, Ezra Klein, put it: “No one can say we weren’t warned. And warned. And warned. A pandemic disease is the most predictable catastrophe in the history of the human race, if only because it has happened to the human race so many, many times before.”3 Even with effective new medicines, if we can devise them, we must contain outbreaks of bacterial disease fast, lest they get out of control. In other words, we have a social-organizational challenge before us as well as a strictly medical one. That means getting sufficient amounts of medicine into the right hands and in the right places, but it also means educating people and enabling them to communicate with each other to prevent any outbreak from spreading widely. Responsible governments and cooperative organizations have options in that regard, but even individuals can contribute something. To that end, as a medical doctor I have created a computer app that promises to be useful in that regard—of which more in a moment. But first let us review the situation, for while it has become well known to many people, there is a general resistance to acknowledging the severity and imminence of the danger. What Are the Problems? Bacteria are among the oldest living things on the planet. They are masters of survival and can be found everywhere. Billions of them live on and in every one of us, many of them helping our bodies to run smoothly and stay healthy. Most bacteria that are not helpful to us are at least harmless, but some are not. They invade our cells, spread quickly, and cause havoc that we refer to generically as disease. Millions of people used to die every year as a result of bacterial infections, until we developed antibiotics. These wonder drugs revolutionized medicine, but one can have too much of a good thing. Doctors have used antibiotics recklessly, prescribing them for just about everything, and in the process helped to create strains of bacteria that are resistant to the medicines we have. We even give antibiotics to cattle that are not sick and use them to fatten chickens. Companies large and small still mindlessly market antimicrobial products for hands and home, claiming that they kill bacteria and viruses. They do more harm than good because the low concentrations of antimicrobials that these products contain tend to kill friendly bacteria (not viruses at all), and so clear the way for the mass multiplication of surviving unfriendly bacteria. Perhaps even worse, hospitals have deployed antimicrobial products on an industrial scale for a long time now, the result being a sharp rise in iatrogenic bacterial illnesses. Overuse of antibiotics and commercial products containing them has helped superbugs to evolve. We now increasingly face microorganisms that cannot be killed by antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, or any other chemical weapon we throw at them. Pandemics are the major risk we run as a result, but it is not the only one. Overuse of antibiotics by doctors, homemakers, and hospital managers could mean that, in the not-too-distant future, something as simple as a minor cut could again become life-threatening if it becomes infected. Few non-medical professionals are aware that antibiotics are the foundation on which nearly all of modern medicine rests. Cancer therapy, organ transplants, surgeries minor and major, and even childbirth all rely on antibiotics to prevent infections. If infections become untreatable we stand to lose most of the medical advances we have made over the past fifty years.
10/19/21
SeptOct - CP - COVID Plan Flaw
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: Canyon Crest ED | Judge: TJ Maher CP Text Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for COVID-19 medicines. Prefer: 1 COVID is capitalized. A Their own solvency advocate uses capitalized COVID 1AC WTO Communication 20 (Communication from India and South Africa to the WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. "WAIVER FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT FOR THE PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT OF COVID-19." 10-02-2020, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W669.pdfandamp;Open=True) 9. There are several reports about intellectual property rights hindering or potentially hindering timely provisioning of affordable medical products to the patients.3 It is also reported that some WTO Members have carried out urgent legal amendments to their national patent laws to expedite the process of issuing compulsory/government use licenses. 10. Beyond patents, other intellectual property rights may also pose a barrier, with limited options to overcome those barriers. In addition, many countries especially developing countries may face institutional and legal difficulties when using flexibilities available in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). A particular concern for countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity are the requirements of Article 31bis and consequently the cumbersome and lengthy process for the import and export of pharmaceutical products. 11. Internationally, there is an urgent call for global solidarity, and the unhindered global sharing of technology and know-how in order that rapid responses for the handling of COVID-19 can be put in place on a real time basis. 12. In these exceptional circumstances, we request that the Council for TRIPS recommends, as early as possible, to the General Council a waiver from the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19. 13. The waiver should continue until widespread vaccination is in place globally, and the majority of the world's population has developed immunity hence we propose an initial duration of x years from the date of the adoption of the waiver. 14. We request that the Council for TRIPS urgently recommends to the General Council adoption of the annexed decision text. B Key for policy action – theirs is for newspapers and not usable Dictionary.com “COVID-19”. Dictionary.com. No date. Accessed 10/30/21. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/covid-19Xu COVID-19 (all capital letters) is the spelling used internationally by scientific and medical professionals and their related organizations, which corresponds with the American convention of capitalizing an acronym such as AIDS or SARS. However, Covid-19 (spelled like a proper noun with an initial capital letter followed by lowercase letters) is the less obtrusive form used by several prominent media, such as The New York Times and The Times of London. And it is not uncommon to see both forms shortened to just COVID or Covid, respectively. The lowercase form covid is considerably less common in edited text. 2 They don’t use the world resolved – it comes before a policy option. Parcher: Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html (1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constituent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to crafts a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question. That Outweighs 1 Presumption—no offense can be garnered if the plan isn’t implementable—presume neg since aff has the proactive burden of proving the resolution true 2 Incentivizes being more careful in designing plans which is more educational and key to real-world education since the plan could never happen so there’s no point in debating it 3 Precision—typos increase the chance of legal misinterpretation and leads to government ineffectiveness—turns case Fennell n.d. (Cameron Fennell, n.d., “THE HIGH COST OF SMALL MISTAKES: THE MOST EXPENSIVE TYPOS OF ALL TIME,” Six Degrees, https://www.six-degrees.com/the-high-cost-of-small-mistakes-the-most-expensive-typos-of-all-time/) MBB In the process of drafting legal language, including contracts and other business documents, the correct use of spelling, grammar and punctuation is absolutely essential to communicate specific concepts with enough precision so that a literal interpretation leaves no room for ambiguity. This is especially important in an age when any exchange of information on any platform or in any format – including internal office documents, emails, instant messages and even social media postings – has the ability to become a legally enforceable contract, play a role in pending litigation or be claimed as evidence in a criminal investigation. A typographical mistake in legal language can overturn a court decision, prejudice a judge, dismiss a complaint, disqualify a confession or even release a prisoner on the basis of a technicality. In one noteworthy example, a man convicted of murder in Florida was sentenced to death when a typographical mistake in the written instructions to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial created confusion over sentencing options and parole eligibility. The sentence was later reversed following 11 years of appeals at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. The primary purpose of punctuation, especially in legal language, is to make complicated principles easier to understand. Misplaced punctuation can have serious consequences when it produces unintentional meanings, misunderstandings or multiple interpretations that may not be consistent with the original purposes of the authors. The ambiguity created by inconsistent punctuation has even resulted in recent attempts by historians to rewrite history by challenging the meanings of historic documents in ways that may misconstrue the intentions of the Founding Fathers. One professor made headlines by proposing that a period in the official transcription of the Declaration of Independence was actually inscribed as a comma in the original manuscript – with the implication being that this “typo” has led to centuries of “serious misunderstanding” about the role of government as it relates to the protection of individual liberties. The use of punctuation by the framers of the constitution has also led some scholars to dispute the conventional reading of the Second Amendment by focusing on the inconsistent placement of commas in the original language of the Bill of Rights.
10/30/21
SeptOct - CP - Consult WHO
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jayanne Forrest cites not working for this, check the os doc
9/11/21
SeptOct - CP - Distribution
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley AR | Judge: Austin Broussard The United States should: - substantially increase production and global distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine - cooperate with allies to achieve increased production and global distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Solves heg – us intervenes in vaccine diplomacy better than the aff bc it looks like follow on w the other wto countries Solves developing econs – gives them vaccines Solves credibility – resolves covid which the wto is struggling with That solves better – IP rights don’t hinder vaccine cooperation, but manufacturing capacity is the current constraint. Hans Sauer 6-17 (Deputy General Counsel, Biotechnology Industry Organization.) “Web event — Confronting Joe Biden’s proposed TRIPS waiver for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments” https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/210617-Confronting-Joe-Bidens-proposed-TRIPS-waiver.pdf?x91208andx91208 TDI But contrary to what Lori said, there are genuine real problems in the supply chain that are not caused by patents, that are simply caused by the unavailability and the constraints on existing capacity. There is in this world such a thing as maxed-out capacity that just can’t be increased on a dime. It’s not all due to intellectual property. This is true for existing vaccines as well as for vaccine raw materials. There are trade barriers. There are export restrictions that we should all be aware of and that we need to work on. And there are very real political, I think, interests in finding an explanation for how we got to this place that absolve governments around the world from their own policy decisions that they made in the past. In the United States, again, it was the declared policy of the previous administration, as well as this one, that we would vaccinate healthy college kids and go all down the line and offer a vaccine to everybody who wants it before we start sharing any with grandmothers in Burkina Faso. That was the policy. You can agree with it or disagree with it, but that was policy. We had export restrictions in place before a lot of other countries did. And that, too, contributed to unequal access of vaccines around the world. Another thing that was predictable was that politicians and governments around the world who want to be seen as proactive, on the ball, in control, for a long time were actually very indecisive, very unsure about how to address the COVID problem, which has so many dimensions. Vaccines are only one of those. But with respect to vaccines, not many governments took decisive action, put money on the table, put bets on multiple horses, before we knew whether these vaccines would work, would be approved. And it was governments in middle-income countries who now, I think, justifiably are concerned that they’re not getting fast enough access, who didn’t have the means and who didn’t have the decision-making structure to place the same bets on multiple horses, if you will, that were placed in the relatively more wealthy, global North and global West. But there is, I think, a really good and, with hindsight, predictable explanation of how we got to this place, and I think it teaches us something about how to fix the problem going forward. So why will the waiver not work? Well, first of all, with complex technology like vaccines, Lori touched on it, reverse engineering, like you would for a small molecule drug, is much more difficult if not impossible. But it depends very much more than small molecule drugs on cooperation, on voluntary transfer of technology, and on mutual assistance. We have seen as part of the pandemic response an unprecedented level of collaborations and cooperation and no indication that IP has stood in the way of the pandemic response. The waiver proponents have found zero credible examples of where IP has actually been an obstacle, where somebody has tried to block somebody else from developing a COVID vaccine or other COVID countermeasure, right? It’s not there. Second, the myth of this vast global capacity to manufacture COVID vaccines that somehow exists out there is unsubstantiated and frankly, in my opinion, untrue. But there is no such thing as vast untapped, idle capacity that could be turned around on a dime to start making COVID vaccines within weeks or even months. This capacity needs to be built; it needs to be established. And at a time when time is of the essence to beat this pandemic, starting capacity-building discussions is helpful, but it won’t be the answer to beat this pandemic. It will be the answer if we do everything right to beating the next pandemic. And if we learn any lesson of this, and then I will stop, is that the COVID waiver as well as the situation in which we find ourselves — if anything, it’s a reminder that we definitely have to take global capacity-building more seriously than we did in the past. That is true for the global North, as well as for middle-income countries — all of whom have to dedicate themselves much more determinedly to pandemic preparedness. And there’s a need to invest both in preparedness and in public health systems that hasn’t happened in the wake of past pandemic threats. This is what we will need to do. We will need to reduce export restrictions, and we will need to rededicate ourselves to preparing for the next pandemic. As far as this pandemic goes, there are 11 vaccines around the world that are already being shot into arms, only four of which come from the global North. How many more vaccines do we want? I don’t know, maybe 11 is enough if we start making more of them. But there are manufacturers around the world who know how to do this — including in China, including in India, and including in Russia. All developed their homegrown vaccines, apparently without interference by IP rights, right? So let’s make more of those. I think that’s going to be the more practical and realistic answer to solving the problem. And we need to lean on governments to stop export controls and to dedicate themselves to more global equity.
invest $25 billion into 25 production lines dedicated solely to COVID-19 vaccines to boost global vaccine production managed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
pre-order and distribute 8 billion doses of COVID vaccines using an equitable distribution framework prioritizing developing countries in the Global South.
The CP solves the entirety of the case and does it faster. The plan mis-identifies the Root Cause – IP isn't the Root Cause, Financing is.
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 3 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Rafael Sanchez Counter Plan Text – the United States ought to - anonymously invest $25 billion into 25 production lines dedicated solely to COVID-19 vaccines to boost global vaccine production managed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. - anonymously pre-order and distribute 8 billion doses of COVID vaccines using an equitable distribution framework prioritizing developing countries in the Global South. The CP solves the entirety of the case and does it faster. The plan mis-identifies the Root Cause – IP isn’t the Root Cause, Financing is. Stankiewicz 21 Mike Stankiewicz 5-6-2021"Opinion: For just $25 billion, the U.S. could jump-start a project to quickly vaccinate the entire world against COVID" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-just-25-billion-the-u-s-could-jump-start-a-project-to-quickly-vaccinate-the-entire-world-against-covid-11614898552 (a press officer in Public Citizen's communication's department, where he focuses on legislative policy and health-orientated advocacy)Elmer Despite wealthy countries such as the U.S. ramping up COVID-19 vaccination efforts, it still may take years to vaccinate the world, especially poorer countries, and the economic and humanitarian impacts could be devastating. But an injection of just $25 billion into global vaccine production efforts by the U.S. government could save millions of lives and help prevent economic disaster. The most up-to-date numbers paint incredibly different futures between wealthy and low-income countries. At the current rate of vaccination, analysts predict that developing countries, including almost all of Southeast Asia, may not reach meaningful vaccine coverage until 2023. Comparatively, President Joe Biden has promised that the U.S. will have enough vaccine doses to inoculate every adult within the next three months. Increased fatalities And as wealthy countries such as the U.S. are starting to see lower death, transmission and hospitalization rates, low-income countries are experiencing increased hardship and fatalities. Countries such as Hungry are being forced to tighten restrictions as infection rates increase, and deaths in Africa have spiked by 40 in the past month, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). No country can be left behind in this global pandemic, and the U.S. is in a unique position to make sure every country gets the ample amount of vaccines they need. Public Citizen research has found that just a $25 billion investment in COVID-19 vaccine production by the U.S. government would produce enough vaccine for developing countries, potentially shaving years from the global pandemic. Public Citizen estimates that 8 billion doses of National Institutes of Health-Moderna MRNA, +1.98 vaccine can be produced for just over $3 per dose. To bolster production and supply the necessary 8 billion doses, it would take $1.9 billion to fund the necessary 25 production lines. Another $19 billion would pay for materials and labor, and $3 billion would compensate Moderna for making technology available to manufacturers in other countries. An additional $500 million would cover costs to staff and run a rapid-response federal program that provides technical assistance and facilitates technology transfer to manufacturers and works with the WHO’s technology hub. In total, vaccinating the world would cost less than 1.4 the total of Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan. But such a program also needs to be properly managed to be successful. To help facilitate these efforts, the Biden administration should also designate the government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to lead the world-wide vaccine manufacturing effort. BARDA has the necessary experience to coordinate an initiative of this scale with the WHO, building on its partnership to build pandemic flu manufacturing capacity in developing countries after the bird-flu scare of 2006. Widespread vaccines would help U.S. economy These efforts would dramatically increase access to vaccines in developing countries and speed up global vaccination by years, saving countless lives. But allowing the current vaccine supply crisis to continue is not just inhumane, it is also not in our own economic interest to do so.
10/30/21
SeptOct - CP - Obviousness
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Kartikeya Kotamraju CP text: States should add more stringent requirements for filing patents for medicines. Newsome 17, A (JD candidate George Washington School of Law). (2017). Side effects of evergreening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 45(4), 791-822 Justin The current framework for evaluating a patent application, particularly the requirements of utility and nonobviousness, is insufficient for evaluating whether a secondary patent should be issued for a drug. Given that courts are tied to the low bar for utility and inconsistent with their application of nonobviousness,1 04 it is necessary to pass legislation creating a new utility requirement tailored to secondary pharmaceutical patents. This Note's Author proposes legislation language as follows: 35 U.S.C. § 106: Patentable Pharmaceutical Inventions (a) Utility requirement for secondary patent: In the case of a pharmaceutical invention claiming an improvement on a patented invention, the applicant shall demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence in the written description that such invention has increased efficacy as compared to the original. (b) Increased efficacy defined: As used in part (a), "increased efficacy" refers to a proven improvement in the mechanism of action, as disclosed in the patent claims. 0 5 (c) Mechanism of action defined: As used in part (b), "mechanism of action" refers to the process by which a drug functions to produce a therapeutic effect, as disclosed in the patent claims. 06 Under this legislation, the USPTO could grant a secondary patent only if the new formula's mechanism of action, or production of the intended pharmacological effect, in fact improves upon the patented drug's mechanism of action. For example, because VidaDrug is a chemotherapy drug, the new formula must include a change in the mechanism of action which causes an improvement in the efficacy of the drug's tumor-shrinking abilities to be eligible for a secondary patent. A formula tweak that reduces side effects is insufficient, because the underlying purpose of the drug - to treat cancer - remains unaffected.
Solves best. Newsome 17, A (JD candidate George Washington School of Law). (2017). Side effects of evergreening may include decreased competition and increased prices in the pharmaceutical industry. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 45(4), 791-822 Justin Pharmaceutical patents are inherently different from software or manufacturing patents. 144 Pharmaceutical companies create life-saving drugs that carry a very serious benefit for a vulnerable group of consumers - patients. Because of this, the pharmaceutical industry should be held to a higher standard if its companies seek to prohibit affordable generic drugs from coming to the marketplace.
An Efficacy-Focused Standard Will Motivate Pharmaceutical Companies to Channel Resources to Creating Real Innovation Pharmaceutical companies argue that patent-life-cycle-management strategies (their preferred name for those tactics described herein as evergreening) are essential to ensuring they recoup RandD costs. 145 However, creation of a standard such as the one proposed here would ensure that pharmaceutical companies are properly incentivized to channel RandD resources to creating measurable change in the drugs, rather than creating minor changes that prolong the time they can profit off of monopolies at the expense of patients. For those industries in which RandD is more productive, like the pharmaceutical industry, "patent procedures should be refined to tighten the relationship between patents and the underlying inventions."14 6 2. A Higher Standard for Secondary Pharmaceutical Patents Will Increase Competition and Lead to Lower Prices The patent system enables pharmaceutical companies to retain market exclusivity for their drugs, allowing them to set high prices without an eye toward competition.1 47 The companies cite the need to recoup RandD costs as the driving factor for their pricing decisions,148 but critics say their main motivation is making a profit.'49 While the pharmaceutical companies' argument may hold weight, high prices for drugs have a negative impact on those patients who need those drugs, but cannot afford them.150 Tightening patent laws to prevent pharmaceutical companies from retaining patent protection for minor changes in their patented drugs will allow other companies to enter the marketplace sooner and drive prices down through competition. 5
9/18/21
SeptOct - CP - Obviousness v2
Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Plano Independent Nathan Gong | Judge: Benjamin Morbeck Counterplan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to require stricter patentability standards for follow on patents by the drug’s originator and more strictly apply the non-obviousness standard to new patent applications Solves evergreening, but also leaves room for genuine innovation. Christie et. al 21, A.F., Dent, C.H.R.I.S. and Studdert, D.M., 2021. Evidence of 'Evergreening' in secondary patenting of blockbuster drugs. Melbourne University Law Review, 44(2), pp.537-564. sid It is reassuring that the majority of follow-on innovation associated with blockbuster drugs is undertaken by entities other than the drug’s originator, and occurs both before and after expiry of the patent over the drug’s API and the expiry of associated secondary patents held by the originator of the API. This shows that patents — both primary and secondary — which are owned by the originators of blockbuster drugs do not give them a monopoly over further innovation in relation to the drug. Thus, it appears that policymakers do not need to be concerned that drug originators’ secondary patents stifle welfare-enhancing innovation by others. The fact that most of the follow-on innovation by others occurs after the granting of regulatory approval to market the drug provides policymakers with a potentially valuable lever. It seems likely that any regulatory reforms which expedite the granting of drug approval will also expedite the commencement — and thus potentially increase the amount — of follow-on innovation that is undertaken by third parties. Since such follow-on innovation is generally regarded as socially desirable, policymakers should seek to identify mechanisms that speed up the assessment of drug approval without compromising the effectiveness of that assessment. Although the majority of blockbuster drug follow-on innovation is undertaken by third parties, a substantial amount (27) is undertaken by the originator of the drug — resulting in an average of 13 secondary patents per drug. These secondary patents have greater private value than those held by others, and their typology is consistent with the theorised evergreening behaviour of drug originators. Considered together with our earlier study’s findings, these findings provide support for the view that secondary patenting by drug originators can have adverse welfare effects through extending the originator’s marketplace exclusivity over the drug. Policymakers must be alert to this possibility, and need to consider how to reduce its likelihood. We consider that those responsible for implementing, reviewing, validating and correcting patent examination practices — patent offices and, ultimately, courts — should ensure that the patentability requirements, especially those of inventive step (non-obviousness) and industrial application (utility), are applied rigorously to the types of follow-on innovation with the greatest potential to have an evergreening effect — namely, delivery mechanisms for, and formulations of, APIs. Their own solvency advocate concedes that the counterplan solves Feldman 19 Robin Feldman (professor of law and director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco). “‘One-and-done’ for new drugs could cut patent thickets and boost generic competition.” Stat News. 11 February 2019. JDN. https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/11/drug-patent-protection-one-done/ One-and-done would apply to both patents and exclusivities. A more limited approach, a baby step if you will, would be to invigorate the existing patent obviousness doctrine as a way to cut back on patent tinkering. Obviousness, one of the five standards for patent eligibility, says that inventions that are obvious to an expert or the general public can’t be patented. Either by congressional clarification or judicial interpretation, many pile-on patents could be eliminated with a ruling that the core concept of the additional patent is nothing more than the original formulation. Anything else is merely an obvious adaptation of the core invention, modified with existing technology. As such, the patent would fail for being perfectly obvious. Even without congressional action, a more vigorous and robust application of the existing obviousness doctrine could significantly improve the problem of piled-up patents and patent walls.
9/25/21
SeptOct - CP - Scientists
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AA | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy Text: A nation appointed international panel of scientists including National Academies and corresponding organizations should reduce trade secret protections for medicines by requiring that plaintiffs prove that the acquisition, use, and disclosure of the trade secret did not pertain to revealing misconduct, wrongdoing, or illegal activity, or to protecting the general public interest 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 level, science diplomacy is defined as cooperation among countries in order to solve complex problems through scientific research and education (1). For example, science diplomacy plays an important role in resolving global issues related to the ecosystem (such as clean water, food safety, energy conservation, and preservation of the environment). It also addresses problems related to the healthcare industry. For example, scientists have served at the international level to forge the Middle Eastern Cancer Consortium a decade ago to facilitate better healthcare and improve cancer research in the region. Whether one considers science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science, international science collaborations benefit from allowing science diplomats (broadly defined as science envoys, science attaches, embassy fellows) to help establish positive international relationships between the U.S., Europe, Latin America, Africa or Asia, particularly when proprietary disputes arise (2, 3). These various types of science diplomats already exist; some, like embassy fellows and science envoys, have one-year appointments so their role may be limited, while attaches usually have two or three year appointments that may allow them to be more successful in long, protracted negotiations. In any event, we believe that scientists can play more of a role in advancing international scientific cooperation. A key point addressed here is how to balance security concerns against the need for free exchange of information needed for innovation and growth. Both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are already engaged in supporting American science and strengthening collaborations abroad. Such efforts take advantage of international expertise, facilities, and equipment. Here, we provide a rationale for the use of diplomacy to address scientific challenges. This approach allows some scientists working as diplomats to help manage complex and potentially conflicting situations that arise between scientific communities and their governments. Such issues include managing disputes such as licensing agreements for intellectual property (IP) and providing protection of IP. International collaborations can not only support but also accelerate the advancement of science. However, collaborations may carry risk if IP is misappropriated for other purposes. International collaborations should have a basis in strategy and specific goals (for example, drug discovery) in order to justify the use of government and/or corporate funds. About a decade ago, a group of academics from the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom assembled the “Manchester Manifesto,” subtitled “Who Owns Science” (6). This document addressed the lack of alignment between commercial interests, intellectual rights, and credit to the researcher. In our (and commonly held) view, the groups representing these disparate values could benefit from diplomatic mediation. More recently, it has become increasing apparent that managing China as a science and technology superpower represents another challenge for the U.S. Resolution of issues such as ownership of IP, rights to reagents, or use of skilled laboratory personnel from international collaborations may require the efforts of science diplomats. There are few international offices or “guardians” to protect junior and senior scientists in corporate or academic sectors from misuse of reagents or piracy. China’s failure to respect IP rights, and the resulting piracy, has drawn much attention. The media have also focused on the failure of watchdog government agencies to detect and manage these unwanted activities. Industrial espionage compromises U.S. interests. Moreover, Chinese and Russian hackers have cyberattacked U.S. technology companies, financial institutions, media groups, and defense contractors. In 2018, industrial spying was even reported in a major medical school in New York City where scientists were alleged to have illegally shared research findings with Chinese companies. The U.S. has a long history of hiring research personnel from other countries to staff its laboratories and industrial RandD centers. These scientists and engineers have made critical contributions to our nation’s well-being and security. These young Chinese and South Asian graduates of U.S. programs a generation ago now staff our research enterprise. However, recent trends in U.S. graduate school applications in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) reflect a downturn in foreign applicants, particularly from China. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the number of American-born students seeking STEM degrees is not sufficient to satisfy future demands of our high-tech workforce. While our own educational reforms must be augmented, we cannot ignore the need to continue to recruit overseas talent. We believe that foreign scientists can continue to make critical discoveries in the U. S. provided that their talent is nurtured, developed, and harnessed for the common good. At the same time, American companies cannot hire foreign scientists if they take the ideas they generate in U.S. laboratories back to their home countries without proper credit or permission. If the advancement of science is to succeed, greater diplomatic cooperation is needed to solve and manage proprietary issues for the benefit of all (5, 6). So, how does one strike the proper balance between security and growth? Science is a universal social enterprise; international conferences lead to friendships and productive collaborations between nations. Given that the U.S. and Chinese governments recognize the need for international communication and collaboration then surely there should be a mechanism for adjudicating anticipated conflicts. One approach would be for government, industrial, and academic stakeholders to form an international panel of scientists and engineers to manage any conflicts of interest between the need to protect proprietary information crucial to a company’s competitive edge, and the need for students and young faculty members to publish their findings. Smaller scale efforts along these lines have recently given rise to unique global partnerships, such as fellowship support by major pharmaceutical companies, which aim to address these conflicts to the benefit of both parties. An added feature of such arrangements is that they often provide corporate financing for research (9). Can this corporate-academic partnership model be adapted to multinational joint RandD efforts while protecting IP? This question falls squarely within the purview of international science diplomacy, whereby science diplomats can establish rules of conduct governing joint global technology development with proper IP protection. Despite the highly publicized and legitimate piracy allegations against China, at least some data indicates that the Chinese legal system is responding positively to worldwide pressure to honor foreign IP. A 2016 study by Love, Helmers, and Eberhardt, for example, found that between 2006 and 2011, foreign companies brought over 10 percent of patent infringement cases in China, and won over 70 percent of those cases (10). Today, “win rates” average around 80 percent, and “injunction rates,” around 98 percent (10). As Chinese scientists and engineers increasingly enter the top tier of the innovation space, their growing awareness of their own need for IP protection could be a powerful motivating force for the protection of all IP. As stated earlier, science diplomats could catalyze this progress even further by direct negotiations with those parties involved in the conflicts. An obvious flaw in this optimistic outlook is that scientists in the U.S. wield more influence with their government than scientists in China wield with theirs. And to the extent that the Chinese government could be encouraging IP theft, this must be addressed first by those international companies/firms who want to do business with the Chinese. Chinese investments, as well as tech incubators and targeted acquisitions, can enable access to U.S. technologies for commercial development. Although this conveys a level of risk to the developers, it may provide valuable opportunities for U.S. companies as well. In many respects, the extensive engagement and collaboration in innovation between the U.S. and China, often characterized by open exchanges of ideas, talent, and technologies, can be mutually beneficial in enriching and accelerating innovation in both countries. In summary, we believe that science diplomats could help address the increasingly complex issues that arise between accelerating scientific and engineering advances, and the need to protect national security and corporate IP. We also propose that this might be accomplished by asking the National Academies to recommend academic, corporate, and government scientific leaders to serve on an international scientific advisory board, and for the corresponding organizations in other countries to do the same. Access to the free flow of information promotes new knowledge and innovation. A return to a more restrictive intellectual environment is not only harmful to progress, but also nearly impossible to manage in the current internet age. A good place to start would be to engage the newly appointed head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (the Science Advisor to the President of the United States), and working groups within established organizations. These organizations include the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and corresponding international organizations. What incentive is there for a busy and successful scientist to serve in such capacity? It is the same altruism that motivates us to accept assignments as journal editors, manuscript reviewers, or funding agency panelists for the advancement of science toward the greater good.
Solves every existential threat. Haynes 18—research associate in the Neurobiology Department at Harvard Medical School (Trevor, “Science Diplomacy: Collaboration in a rapidly changing world,” http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/science-diplomacy-collaboration-rapidly-changing-world/, dml) Re-Cut Justin Today’s world is extremely interconnected. Most of us take this fact for granted, but its implications cannot be overstated. The rate at which information, resources, and people are able to move from one part of the world to another continues to accelerate at an alarming rate. Undoubtedly, this development has done society immense good. In the last century, global life expectancy has doubled, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has dropped by about 60, and world literacy rates have increased by a similar margin. But while these statistics paint a promising picture of human civilization, human progress rests on a fragile foundation of international cooperation; the challenges presented by an interconnected world are immense. War, natural disasters, and economic collapse now exert their effects globally, creating economic and ecological disasters and mass human migrations on an unprecedented scale. And with the US pulling out of major multilateral agreements on trade, climate change mitigation, and denuclearization, you might wonder if our ability to collaborate across borders productively is really up to the task. Global challenges require global solutions, and global solutions require collaboration between countries both big and small, rich and poor, authoritative and democratic. There are few human enterprises capable of providing continuity across these differences, and as technological solutions are becoming available to some of our most pressing issues, two in particular will be necessary to getting the job done: science and diplomacy. While science has long been utilized as a means to reach political ends—think of British explorer James Cook’s mapping of unexplored continents or the United States’ Manhattan Project—a more formal integration of scientists into the diplomatic process is being undertaken. This effort, which has led to scientists and academics playing a direct role in foreign policy development and international relations, has given birth of a new branch of diplomacy: science diplomacy. What is science diplomacy? As both the term and concept of science diplomacy have only recently gained traction in scientific and diplomatic circles, it’s been given a variety of definitions. But common to them all is the focus on applying scientific expertise to an international effort. The focus of these efforts is to solve international problems collaboratively while balancing economic prosperity, environmental protection, and societal wellbeing. The challenge of reaching this balance in the face of a booming global population cannot be understated, but this new branch of diplomacy is already at work and is producing results. International agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal are two famous examples, and science diplomacy is also establishing international collaboration in many other important arenas. While these lesser known efforts may not dominate the headlines, they are quietly tackling the global issues of today and preparing us for those of tomorrow. Natural disasters don’t respect national boundaries (and neither does the aftermath) In 2013, the number of refugees displaced by natural disasters—hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes—outnumbered those displaced by war. Current projections estimate as many as 1 billion people may be displaced by natural disasters by the year 2050. That would mean 1 in 9 people on the planet displaced and looking for a home. Compare this to the estimated 12 million refugees displaced by the war in Syria, and a frightening picture begins to form. As natural disasters continue to increase in both their frequency and intensity, solutions for mitigating the risk of total catastrophe will be underpinned by science, technology, and the ability of the international community to collaborate. Many organizations are starting to tackle these problems through the use of science diplomacy. The center for Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) is composed of ten national committees—a network of government sponsored research institutions across the world in countries ranging the political and economic scale. These working groups have committed to improving disaster-risk-reduction science and technology while providing guidance to policy makers charged with implementing disaster prevention and mitigation strategies. IRDR is governed by a committee comprising experienced scientists and natural disaster experts. Its members come from all over the world—the US, China, Uganda, Norway, Mexico, Venezuela, and more. The diversity of this organization starts at the top and is crucial to developing comprehensive risk-reduction strategies. Data and insights from countries with varying areas of expertise are being shared and built upon, facilitating more accurate natural disaster forecasting and better strategies for mitigating their destructive power. And by including representatives from countries of varying political and economic power in its leadership, IRDR ensures that its work will consider the needs of the global community at large, rather than just nations with considerable wealth and political standing. The results of this type of international collaboration speak for themselves. Although humanity is grappling with more natural disasters than ever before, deaths related to these incidents continue to trend downward. Operating outside of the typical political framework that dominates foreign relations, IRDR provides a model for effective collaboration across the geopolitical spectrum in the face of a major global issue. Explore or Exploit? Managing international spaces Over the last few decades the polar ice cap that covers much of the Arctic Ocean has been shrinking. So much so, that during the warm season vast areas of previously solid ice have become open waters, creating opportunities for new trade routes and exposing the Arctic’s enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. Depending on your values, this will sound either like an opportunity for huge economic development of the region or the inevitable exploitation of one of the last untouched natural territories on the planet. And if you live there, like the half a million indigenous people who currently do, how this territory is managed will determine where you can live, how (and if) you can make a living, and what the health of the ecosystems that have supported Arctic life for millennia will look like. Luckily, such a scenario was predicted decades ago. In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev, then leader of the then Soviet Union, delivered a speech outlining his aspirations for the arctic to be explored rather than exploited—to radically reduce military presence, create a collaborative multinational research effort, cooperate on matters of environmental security, and open up the Northern Sea Route for trade. This speech laid the foundation for the Arctic Council (Figure 1), which is one of the most successful examples of science diplomacy at work. Composed of the eight Arctic nations, including geopolitical rivals US and Russia, and numerous groups of indigenous peoples, the Arctic Council was established to maintain Gorbachev’s vision for the region while giving the indigenous peoples a seat at the negotiating table. The council’s activities are conducted by six scientific and technology-based working groups who conduct research in the area and provide knowledge and recommendations to the council members. As a result of this research, and allowing scientists to take part in the negotiations, the Arctic council has enacted several legally binding agreements regarding the sustainable development and environmental protection of the Arctic Ocean. These agreements have facilitated cooperation on a number of important issues including search and rescue operations, prevention and containment of maritime oil pollution, and, most recently, enhanced data sharing and scientific research collaborations. Against a backdrop of rapidly deteriorating diplomatic relations, the US and Russia have co-chaired task forces that laid the foundation for these agreements, proving to the world that meaningful results can be achieved through the avenue of science diplomacy, regardless of geopolitics. Science diplomacy going forward The technical expertise that characterizes science diplomacy will continue to be in demand across many realms of foreign policy. For example, synthetic biology and gene-editing technology continue to factor into matters regarding agriculture and trade. Also, digital currencies, such as bitcoin, have changed the way economists and businesses are approaching markets. Finally, machine learning and artificial intelligence are being used by governments as a means for population control, giving rise to a new type of governance—digital authoritarianism. While this expertise will be necessary for managing such issues, building international coalitions can’t be done through a purely scientific and technical lens. Convincing others to cooperate means providing them with a convincing argument to do so, and in terms they understand and find compelling. To achieve this, scientists must be trained to communicate their expertise in a way that moves stakeholders in policy discussions to act. This means appealing to motivations they have been largely taught to put to the side—whether they be political, economic, or emotional in nature—without obscuring the data and insights they have to offer. For our leaders, policy makers, and diplomats to effectively understand issues underpinned by science and technology, experts in these fields must continue to be integrated into the mechanisms of governance. With scientists in the US running for elections in numbers like never before, we can expect this trend to continue. And in the face of a rising wave of nationalism across the world, it is crucial that we do everything we can to foster collaboration. The future of human civilization depends on it.
9/18/21
SeptOct - CP - Single Payer
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Joseph Georges Text – States ought to individually domestically establish single-payer national health insurance. Fund private public partnerships with pharmaceutical companies over developing solutions to Neglected tropical diseases and AMR super bugs
Solves evergreening and drug prices while avoiding our innovation turns. Narayanan 19 Srivats Narayanan 8-15-2019 "Medicare for All and Evergreening" https://medium.com/@srivats.narayanan/medicare-for-all-and-evergreening-cb84c930e0ea (UMKC School of Medicine)Elmer Drug companies rake in massive profits. The pharmaceutical industry has some of the largest profit margins among American industries. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical giants don’t always have patients’ best interests in mind — they make a big portion of their money by exploiting the patent process instead of making breakthrough drugs that would meaningfully improve patients’ lives. Pharmaceutical corporations aren’t as innovative as one might expect. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been consistently approving new (and expensive) drugs every year, most of these drugs aren’t impacting healthcare much. Many studies have revealed that a whopping 85–90 of new drugs since the mid-1990s “provide few or no clinical advantages.” This is because pharmaceutical firms are spending their time and money on a technique known as “evergreening.” Evergreening is when drug companies produce redundant drugs that are nothing but minor modifications of old drugs. By making slight alterations to their medicines, biotech companies continue to hold patents for drugs with minimal spending on research and development (RandD). Pharmaceutical companies then use those patents to prevent competitors from selling generic versions of their drugs. Without any competition, these corporations get away with ridiculously high drug pricing and can thus make big profits on their drugs. The companies simultaneously justify their absurd drug prices by pointing to the inflated RandD costs of producing new drugs. This excuse has been used time and again by the profit-hungry pharmaceutical industry, and it’s coming at the expense of patients who struggle to afford their medicines. A well-known example of evergreening pertains to the anticonvulsant medication gabapentin, which was first sold by Pfizer under the brand name Neurontin. When the drug became available as a generic medication over a decade ago, Pfizer created a very similar medicine, pregabalin (Lyrica), that didn’t have any significant benefits over the original drug. As a result, Pfizer has kept a control over the market for anticonvulsant drugs with negligible innovation. The drug industry’s reliance on evergreening is undoubtedly stifling innovation. This is where Medicare for All, which would impose the government as the only health insurer, would be useful. In our current system, there are many insurers and they each have little market power and consequently little negotiating power to reduce treatment prices. Since the government would have consolidated control over healthcare financing under Medicare for All, its stronger bargaining power would force drug companies to charge lower prices for their products. In addition, prescription drugs would be paid for by the government and not by patients under Medicare for All. Medicare for All would prevent evergreening. National healthcare financing would align how much the government pays a drug company with how much patients benefit from the company’s drugs. If a new drug had more clinical benefits than an older version, the government would pay more for it. If a new drug produced the same results as an older version, the government wouldn’t pay more for the new drug. So, Medicare for All would encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue truly innovative drugs because such drugs would be more profitable. The policy would incentivize companies to invest in RandD for more useful drugs, instead of just producing redundant and expensive medications. A national healthcare plan would prioritize “patient and community needs” and match up pharmaceutical companies’ interests with actually improving public health. Evergreening has become the name of the game for the pharmaceutical industry. A major solution to the evergreening problem is Medicare for All. A single-payer system like Medicare for All would sharply curtail evergreening, since drug companies wouldn’t be able to profit from it. Medicare for All would usher in a new era of medical innovation.
9/13/21
SeptOct - CP - Weed
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Joseph Georges Counterplan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines except for cannabis, medical marijuana, and medicines containing chemicals from cannabis. It competes – weed is a medicine and is used in medicine WebMD 20 WebMD Medical Reference, WebMD is an American corporation known primarily as an online publisher of news and information pertaining to human health and well-being. The site includes information pertaining to drugs. It is one of the top healthcare websites by unique visitors. It was founded in 1998 by internet entrepreneur Jeff Arnold., August 20, 2020, "Medical Marijuana FAQ,", WebMD LLC, https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/medical-marijuana-faq, 8-21-2021 WHS MR What is medical marijuana? Medical marijuana uses the marijuana plant or chemicals in it to treat diseases or conditions. It's basically the same product as recreational marijuana, but it's taken for medical purposes. The marijuana plant contains more than 100 different chemicals called cannabinoids. Each one has a different effect on the body. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the main chemicals used in medicine. THC also produces the "high" people feel when they smoke marijuana or eat foods containing it. What is medical marijuana used for? Researchers are studying whether medical marijuana can help treat a number of conditions including: Alzheimer's disease Appetite loss Cancer Crohn's disease Diseases effecting the immune system like HIV/AIDS or Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Eating disorders such as anorexia Epilepsy Glaucoma Mental health conditions like schizophrenia and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Multiple sclerosis Muscle spasms Nausea Pain Seizures Wasting syndrome (cachexia) But it’s not yet proven to help many of these conditions, with a few exceptions, Bonn-Miller says. "The greatest amount of evidence for the therapeutic effects of cannabis relate to its ability to reduce chronic pain, nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, and spasticity tight or stiff muscles from MS," Bonn-Miller says. How does it help? Cannabinoids -- the active chemicals in medical marijuana -- are similar to chemicals the body makes that are involved in appetite, memory, movement, and pain. Limited research suggests cannabinoids might: Reduce anxiety Reduce inflammation and relieve pain Control nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy Kill cancer cells and slow tumor growth Relax tight muscles in people with MS Stimulate appetite and improve weight gain in people with cancer and AIDS Can medical marijuana help with seizure disorders? Medical marijuana received a lot of attention a few years ago when parents said that a special form of the drug helped control seizures in their children. The FDA recently approved Epidiolex, which is made from CBD, as a therapy for people with very severe or hard-to-treat seizures. In studies, some people had a dramatic drop in seizures after taking this drug. Has the FDA approved medical marijuana? The cannabidiol Epidiolex was approved in 2018 for treating seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. In addition, the FDA has approved two man-made cannabinoid medicines -- dronabinol (Marinol, Syndros) and nabilone (Cesamet) -- to treat nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy. The cannabidiol Epidiolex was approved in 2018 for treating seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. How do you take it? To take medical marijuana, you can: Smoke it Inhale it through a device called a vaporizer that turns it into a mist Eat it -- for example, in a brownie or lollipop Apply it to your skin in a lotion, spray, oil, or cream Place a few drops of a liquid under your tongue How you take it is up to you. Each method works differently in your body. "If you smoke or vaporize cannabis, you feel the effects very quickly," Bonn-Miller says. "If you eat it, it takes significantly longer. It can take 1 to 2 hours to experience the effects from edible products." The weed industry is growing, but needs investors to stay afloat – patents draw in investors and help companies expand Roberts 20 Chris Roberts, An award-winning investigative reporter and covered the legalization movement and the cannabis industry with a political economy lens for more than a decade. He launched northern California’s first cannabis-centric print vertical and founded San Francisco’s first dedicated drug-policy column. His work’s been featured in VICE, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, Deadspin, Observer, Curbed, Leafly News, High Times, SF Weekly, and many other places. He hold a master’s degree in politics from Columbia Journalism School, 5-28-2020, "Why Patent Cannabis? For Markets, Mostly.," Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisroberts/2020/05/28/why-patent-cannabis-for-markets-mostly/, 8-21-2021 WHS MR On May 20, Charlotte’s Web, the Colorado-based CBD giant and arguably one of the biggest names in legal cannabis, announced that the company was awarded its second federal patent on a cannabis plant. Unlike the company’s 2018 plant patent on a Farm Bill-compliant high-CBD hemp cultivar—which was the first hemp strain to receive federal intellectual property protection—US Patent No. 10,653,085 is a utility patent. This means, after satisfying a more rigorous process, including dropping off thousands of seeds at an official United States depository, Charlotte’s Web now claims as its intellectual property both the cultivar of hemp the company calls CW1AS1 as well as “methods” of plant production and cannabinoid extraction. Okay! But so what? Why patent a hemp strain—why patent two? What does it all mean? Does Charlotte’s Web now have legal claim to the entire CBD game?To the last question, no. And as for what this means, for normal people and cannabis consumers, very little. For patent attorneys or competitors of Charlotte’s Web in the CBD industry, it portends a little more, but just a little. At least for now, cannabis patents like this one aren’t really intended to defend intellectual property in court—which is where a patent has its most practical value. No, this patent is probably meant for the market. Patents like this exist mostly for companies to satisfy and woo investors, for whom a company’s ability to say “Look! I have a patent” might be the difference between signing a check, or not. And like all publicly traded cannabis companies, Charlotte’s Web has a lot of spooked and angry investors who need pleasing. Patents “generate interest in the company, and are something investors would look at,” said Jonathan Hyman, an attorney and partner at the Los Angeles office of Knobbe Martens. Whether Charlotte’s Web would enforce the patent, and how, “remains to be seen,” he added. Company officials were not available to discuss the matter. In a statement provided by Sylvia Tawse, the company’s director of communications, CEO Deanie Elsner said Charlotte’ Web “will continue to pursue patent protection for unique and novel hemp genetics developed by our horticulture division.” Whether that meant there are any pretenders the company plans to sue, she did not say. Though cannabis-related patent applications have been a thing since well before legalization and have tripled since 2015, as IP Watchdog noted, the mere phrase “cannabis patent” can still be triggering in cannabis circles. Patent talk can often lead to galaxy-brain thinking like the “Monsanto is supporting legalization in order to steal cannabis” or the “Philip Morris is buying up land in Humboldt County” conspiracy theories. In the case of Charlotte’s Web, the company’s already locked up what’s probably its most valuable asset: its name. Charlotte’s Web is named for Charlotte Figi, the sufferer of childhood epilepsy who enjoyed relief from her symptoms after taking an extract of high-CBD cannabis grown by the Stanley brothers (and who died earlier this month after contracting COVID-19). The world came to know Charlotte Figi and the Stanley brothers, seven photogenic Coloradans whose first names all begin with J, after they were prominently featured in a 2014 CNN special hosted by Sanjay Gupta. A very famous children’s book and a very famous and recognizable name, the company was sure lock down the name “Charlotte’s Web” with a trademark—one the company is currently defending in federal court, after a rival company dared market CBD products called Charlotte’s Web. That’s what patents are for in terms of the law. But markets are another matter—and it’s worth observing that the company went public after securing its first patent. Like almost all publicly traded companies in the cannabis sector, Charlotte’s Web is stuck in high-loss doldrums after hitting early peaks. For the past week, shares in Charlotte’s Web have been trading in the $7 to $9 range in the Toronto Stock Exchange. That’s a big gain from the $4.24 seen at the company’s mid-March nadir, but still far below last summer’s high-water mark of $28.21, set in August. Despite being sold in more than 11,000 stores, the company still lost $1.7 million in 2020—a hit smaller than other companies in the cannabis sector, but still in the red. Patenting hemp genetics and the processes to achieve them won’t be enough to rescue the rest of the company’s lost value. But if Charlotte’s Web wants to be a global CBD brand, with product in supermarkets and convenience stores all over the globe—and why wouldn’t it?—this means something. "Having this patent, that they can wave around and say, 'Hey, we've got coverage on it, and it's the best variety of CBD rich hemp that you're going to get,’ ” said Andrew Merickel, who holds a Phd in neuroscience and is also an attorney and partner at the San Francisco office of Knobbe Martens. “That’s pretty valuable.” How valuable? That’s all up to the logic of the market. Cannabis is key to agricultural tech innovation – k2 long term sustainability and security Yamazaki 17 Kevin Yamazaki (founder and CEO of Sidebench, a leading digital product and venture studio that creates custom software and apps), 3-27-2017, "High Tech: How Marijuana Legalization Breeds Innovation," Observer, https://observer.com/2017/03/high-tech-how-marijuana-legalization-breeds-innovation/, SJBE With the competition blazing and increased legalization on the horizon, we can expect to see the weed market become a hotbed for tech innovations. Forecasts indicate that revenue in the U.S. from medical marijuana alone will reach at least $10.8 billion by 2018. When states expand to allow recreational use, this number will surely increase. As investors become more comfortable deploying capital around cannabis, tech will revolutionize the marijuana ecosystem for producers, distributors, and consumers alike. The future of marijuana innovation Innovation has begun to outpace legalization as tech organizations make groundbreaking strides in researching and developing applications for marijuana. For example, Kalytera is exploring how cannabidiol — a non-psychoactive cannabinoid with a number of potential medical applications — can be used to target diseases such as obesity and osteoporosis. The findings of such research could transform how people cope with chronic illness and pain. Companies are also experimenting with improvements in weed-growing processes. Cannabis is a finicky crop, so the ability to fine-tune growing processes could generate products far superior to today’s. Several organizations are devising smart, energy-efficient systems that automatically adjust growing environments according to changes in moisture, temperature, and sunlight. Meanwhile, data-capture technologies enable growers to identify optimal conditions for their plants, leading to larger and better-quality yields. The primary speed bump for the industry at this point is that marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I drug and is illegal at the federal level. Even if this factor doesn’t inhibit marijuana-centric technology innovation directly, it certainly has a strong indirect effect, as many potential financiers (and entrepreneurs) are scared away by either fear of prosecution or skepticism about the industry’s stability. That said, as more states allow for medical marijuana or legalize the drug entirely, the potential market size for marijuana-centric products expands as well. Perhaps more importantly, with some form of state legalization becoming the norm rather than the exception, there is a degree of safety in numbers. Assuming we see the trend of legalization for medical and recreational uses continue, production will inevitably become an even bigger business. Technology will play an increasing role in ensuring quality, consistency, and efficiency on the production side. We’re already seeing startups like Cannafuse and Teewinoit Life Sciences focusing on providing a tech-enabled scientific approach to the mass scientific production and distribution of cannabis. Advances in the irrigation systems, efficiency lamps, and data tracking processes used to grow marijuana may have far-reaching effects beyond the cannabis industry. Industrial farmers could adopt these techniques to increase their outputs and reduce energy expenses, while building managers can use them to lower energy loads from their properties. On the consumer side, the medical marijuana industry, in particular, will likely see an explosion of on-demand delivery services. Consumers are accustomed to using their smartphones to book cars, buy groceries, and mail packages. Why wouldn’t they receive their medical marijuana that way, too? Expect to see personalized services as well — think apps that recommend strains of marijuana on the basis of your preferences. Apps such as MassRoots bring the social media aspect to what is, for many people, a social product by connecting weed enthusiasts to one another through news updates and other types of content. Even Microsoft is throwing its hat into the ring with marijuana tracking software that ensures growers comply with their tax obligations and prevents legally grown pot from ending up on the black market. As the cannabis industry expands, the opportunities for growth are diverse and extensive. Tech-enabled companies will inevitably spur that growth, driving breakthroughs in medicine, crop development, and customer experiences. The momentum created by legalization will transform a once-taboo drug into a mainstream commodity, and the tech world stands to benefit enormously. Extinction – food insecurity causes conflict and goes nuclear FDI 12 FDI Team, 25 May 2012, “Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points,” Future Directions International, https://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity/, SJBE There is little dispute that conflict can lead to food and water crises. This paper will consider parts of the world, however, where food and water insecurity can be the cause of conflict and, at worst, result in war. While dealing predominately with food and water issues, the paper also recognises the nexus that exists between food and water and energy security. There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
China is using a lack of alternate COVID vaccines to engage in aggressive vaccine diplomacy and expand influence – the Plan's increase of access to perceptively more efficacious vaccines devastates those efforts.
Zhao 4-29 Suisheng Zhao 4-29-2021 "Why China's vaccine diplomacy is winning" https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/04/29/why-chinas-vaccine-diplomacy-is-winning/ (Professor and Director of the Center for China–US Cooperation at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver)Elmer Chinese COVID-19 vaccines have been shipped to more than 80 countries for market AND countries, receive the vaccines they need to finally beat COVID-19.
Waivers are a critical issue in the perceptual ineptness of America and the West.
Pratt and Levin 4-29 Simon Frankel Pratt and Jamie Levin 4-29-2021 "Vaccines Will Shape the New Geopolitical Order" https://archive.is/OgDcA~~#selection-847.23-857.11 (Simon Frankel Pratt is a lecturer in the School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies at the University of Bristol. Jamie Levin is an assistant professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada.)Elmer While home to vaccines produced by the likes of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, AND inequities within already inequitable trade relationships between these countries and the global south.
Chinese leadership solves existential threats.
Yamei 18 Shen Yamei 18, Deputy Director and Associate Research Fellow of Department for American Studies, China Institute of International Studies, 1-9-2018, "Probing into the "Chinese Solution" for the Transformation of Global Governance," CAIFC, http://www.caifc.org.cn/en/content.aspx?id=4491 As the world is in a period of great development, transformation and adjustment, AND , refugees, climate change and public hygiene by debt forgiveness and assistance.
2/20/22
SeptOct - DA - Climate Patents
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but patent waivers set a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is precisely for this reason that it can expect to be in the crosshairs of potential IP waiver discussions. President Biden is correct to refer to climate change as an existential crisis. Yet it does not take too much effort to connect the dots between President Biden’s focus on climate change and his Administration’s recent commitment to waive global IP rights for Covid vaccines (TRIPS IP Waiver). “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.” If an IP waiver is purportedly necessary to solve the COVID-19 global health crisis (and of course we dispute this notion), can we really feel confident that this or some future Administration will not apply the same logic to the climate crisis? And, without the confidence in the underlying IP for such solutions, what does this mean for U.S. innovation and economic growth? United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai was subject to questioning along this very line during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing. And while Ambassador Tai did not affirmatively state that an IP waiver would be in the future for climate change technology, she surely did not assuage the concerns of interested parties. The United States has historically supported robust IP protection. This support is one reason the United States is the center of biotechnology innovation and leading the fight against COVID-19. However, a brief review of the domestic legislation arguably most relevant to this discussion shows just how far the international campaign against IP rights has eroded our normative position. The Clean Air Act, for example, contains a provision allowing for the mandatory licensing of patents covering certain devices for reducing air pollution. Importantly, however, the patent owner is accorded due process and the statute lays out a detailed process regulating the manner in which any such license can be issued, including findings of necessity and that no reasonable alternative method to accomplish the legislated goal exists. Also of critical importance is that the statute requires compensation to the patent holder. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act contemplates mandatory licensing of patents covering inventions of primary importance in producing or utilizing atomic energy. This statute, too, requires due process, findings of importance to the statutory goals and compensation to the rights holder. A TRIPS IP waiver would operate outside of these types of frameworks. There would be no due process, no particularized findings, no compensation and no recourse. Indeed, the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) already has a process under the TRIPS agreement to address public health crises, including the compulsory licensing provisions, with necessary guardrails and compensation, makes quite clear that the waiver would operate as a free for all. Forced Tech Transfer Could Be on The Table When being questioned about the scope of a potential TRIPS IP waiver, Ambassador Tai invoked the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this answer suggests primarily that, in times of famine, the Administration would rather give away other people’s fishing rods than share its own plentiful supply of fish (here: actual COVID-19 vaccine stocks), it is apparent that in Ambassador Tai’s view waiving patent rights alone would not help lower- and middle-income countries produce their own vaccines. Rather, they would need to be taught how to make the vaccines and given the biotech industry’s manufacturing know-how, sensitive cell lines, and proprietary cell culture media in order to do so. In other words, Ambassador Tai acknowledged that the scope of the current TRIPS IP waiver discussions includes the concept of forced tech transfer. In the context of climate change, the idea would be that companies who develop successful methods for producing new seed technologies and sustainable biomass, reducing greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transportation, capturing and sequestering carbon in soil and products, and more, would be required to turn over their proprietary know-how to global competitors. While it is unclear how this concept would work in practice and under the constitutions of certain countries, the suggestion alone could be devastating to voluntary international collaborations. Even if one could assume that the United States could not implement forced tech transfer on its own soil, what about the governments of our international development partners? It is not hard to understand that a U.S.-based company developing climate change technologies would be unenthusiastic about partnering with a company abroad knowing that the foreign country’s government is on track – with the assent of the U.S. government – to change its laws and seize proprietary materials and know-how that had been voluntarily transferred to the local company. Necessary Investment Could Diminish Developing climate change solutions is not an easy endeavor and bad policy positions threaten the likelihood that they will materialize. These products have long lead times from research and development to market introduction, owing not only to a high rate of failure but also rigorous regulatory oversight. Significant investment is required to sustain and drive these challenging and long-enduring endeavors. For example, synthetic biology companies critical to this area of innovation raised over $1 billion in investment in the second quarter of 2019 alone. If investors cannot be confident that IP will be in place to protect important climate change technologies after their long road from bench to market, it is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. Climate change destroys the world. Specktor 19 Brandon 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 6-4-2019, "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."
9/11/21
SeptOct - DA - Climate Patents v2
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: Triples | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Joseph Georges Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is precisely for this reason that it can expect to be in the crosshairs of potential IP waiver discussions. President Biden is correct to refer to climate change as an existential crisis. Yet it does not take too much effort to connect the dots between President Biden’s focus on climate change and his Administration’s recent commitment to waive global IP rights for Covid vaccines (TRIPS IP Waiver). “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.” If an IP waiver is purportedly necessary to solve the COVID-19 global health crisis (and of course we dispute this notion), can we really feel confident that this or some future Administration will not apply the same logic to the climate crisis? And, without the confidence in the underlying IP for such solutions, what does this mean for U.S. innovation and economic growth? United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai was subject to questioning along this very line during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing. And while Ambassador Tai did not affirmatively state that an IP waiver would be in the future for climate change technology, she surely did not assuage the concerns of interested parties. The United States has historically supported robust IP protection. This support is one reason the United States is the center of biotechnology innovation and leading the fight against COVID-19. However, a brief review of the domestic legislation arguably most relevant to this discussion shows just how far the international campaign against IP rights has eroded our normative position. The Clean Air Act, for example, contains a provision allowing for the mandatory licensing of patents covering certain devices for reducing air pollution. Importantly, however, the patent owner is accorded due process and the statute lays out a detailed process regulating the manner in which any such license can be issued, including findings of necessity and that no reasonable alternative method to accomplish the legislated goal exists. Also of critical importance is that the statute requires compensation to the patent holder. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act contemplates mandatory licensing of patents covering inventions of primary importance in producing or utilizing atomic energy. This statute, too, requires due process, findings of importance to the statutory goals and compensation to the rights holder. A TRIPS IP waiver would operate outside of these types of frameworks. There would be no due process, no particularized findings, no compensation and no recourse. Indeed, the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) already has a process under the TRIPS agreement to address public health crises, including the compulsory licensing provisions, with necessary guardrails and compensation, makes quite clear that the waiver would operate as a free for all. Forced Tech Transfer Could Be on The Table When being questioned about the scope of a potential TRIPS IP waiver, Ambassador Tai invoked the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this answer suggests primarily that, in times of famine, the Administration would rather give away other people’s fishing rods than share its own plentiful supply of fish (here: actual COVID-19 vaccine stocks), it is apparent that in Ambassador Tai’s view waiving patent rights alone would not help lower- and middle-income countries produce their own vaccines. Rather, they would need to be taught how to make the vaccines and given the biotech industry’s manufacturing know-how, sensitive cell lines, and proprietary cell culture media in order to do so. In other words, Ambassador Tai acknowledged that the scope of the current TRIPS IP waiver discussions includes the concept of forced tech transfer. In the context of climate change, the idea would be that companies who develop successful methods for producing new seed technologies and sustainable biomass, reducing greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transportation, capturing and sequestering carbon in soil and products, and more, would be required to turn over their proprietary know-how to global competitors. While it is unclear how this concept would work in practice and under the constitutions of certain countries, the suggestion alone could be devastating to voluntary international collaborations. Even if one could assume that the United States could not implement forced tech transfer on its own soil, what about the governments of our international development partners? It is not hard to understand that a U.S.-based company developing climate change technologies would be unenthusiastic about partnering with a company abroad knowing that the foreign country’s government is on track – with the assent of the U.S. government – to change its laws and seize proprietary materials and know-how that had been voluntarily transferred to the local company. Necessary Investment Could Diminish Developing climate change solutions is not an easy endeavor and bad policy positions threaten the likelihood that they will materialize. These products have long lead times from research and development to market introduction, owing not only to a high rate of failure but also rigorous regulatory oversight. Significant investment is required to sustain and drive these challenging and long-enduring endeavors. For example, synthetic biology companies critical to this area of innovation raised over $1 billion in investment in the second quarter of 2019 alone. If investors cannot be confident that IP will be in place to protect important climate change technologies after their long road from bench to market, it is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. Private sector innovation is key to solve climate change – short term politicking and priority shifts means government can’t solve alone. Henry 17, Simon. “Climate Change Cannot Be Solved by Governments Alone. How Can the Private Sector Help?” World Economic Forum, 21 Nov. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/governments-alone-cannot-halt-climate-change-what-can-private-sector-do/. Programme Director, International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) sid Climate leadership is also an opportunity for many organizations, and this was the most popular reason for purchasing carbon credits in Ecosystem Marketplace’s 2016 survey of buyers. Companies are looking to differentiate from their competitors, and build their brand, by taking a leadership role on climate. Offsetting plays an integral role in delivering this climate leadership status, alongside direct emissions reductions. The survey indicated that companies that included offsetting in their carbon management strategy typically spend about 10 times more on emissions reductions activities than the typical company that doesn’t offset. Beyond these direct commercial reasons for companies to take voluntary action, there are many broader, societal motivations at play. Climate change is a global, multidecade challenge that needs solutions and input from all stakeholders. It transcends the short-term nature of politics, which will inevitably experience changes in priorities, personnel and knowledge. Because of this, climate change cannot be solved by governments alone. Instead, it needs significant and long-term investment from the private sector. Companies that take a longer-term outlook recognise this and want to contribute to the solution to help secure the viability of their businesses. Warming causes Extinction Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (climate change, global freshwater cycle, and ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one another in ways that yield surprises. In addition, climate, freshwater, and ocean acidification are all directly connected to the provision of food and water, and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social unrest. Climate change has a long history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields). Climate change intersects with freshwater resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20 of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs. Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge—and may be ravaged by recurrent storms. A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes Humans are remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70 of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40 think it will harm them (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly, unlike past environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops. In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2 release which further increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on. Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified (e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, and Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, and Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti and Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, and Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al., 2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey, Stone, and Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, and Walker, 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions. The expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe with climate warming and drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, and Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres, https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-largest-wildfire). This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Record-breaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry, Schramm, and Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann and Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections (Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof, DeAngelo, Saleska, and Harte, 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013). For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, and Norris, 2009). The key lesson from the long list of potentially positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and runaway perturbations have to be taken as a serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.
9/13/21
SeptOct - DA - Climate Patents v3
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Lindsey Williams Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is precisely for this reason that it can expect to be in the crosshairs of potential IP waiver discussions. President Biden is correct to refer to climate change as an existential crisis. Yet it does not take too much effort to connect the dots between President Biden’s focus on climate change and his Administration’s recent commitment to waive global IP rights for Covid vaccines (TRIPS IP Waiver). “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.” If an IP waiver is purportedly necessary to solve the COVID-19 global health crisis (and of course we dispute this notion), can we really feel confident that this or some future Administration will not apply the same logic to the climate crisis? And, without the confidence in the underlying IP for such solutions, what does this mean for U.S. innovation and economic growth? United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai was subject to questioning along this very line during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing. And while Ambassador Tai did not affirmatively state that an IP waiver would be in the future for climate change technology, she surely did not assuage the concerns of interested parties. The United States has historically supported robust IP protection. This support is one reason the United States is the center of biotechnology innovation and leading the fight against COVID-19. However, a brief review of the domestic legislation arguably most relevant to this discussion shows just how far the international campaign against IP rights has eroded our normative position. The Clean Air Act, for example, contains a provision allowing for the mandatory licensing of patents covering certain devices for reducing air pollution. Importantly, however, the patent owner is accorded due process and the statute lays out a detailed process regulating the manner in which any such license can be issued, including findings of necessity and that no reasonable alternative method to accomplish the legislated goal exists. Also of critical importance is that the statute requires compensation to the patent holder. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act contemplates mandatory licensing of patents covering inventions of primary importance in producing or utilizing atomic energy. This statute, too, requires due process, findings of importance to the statutory goals and compensation to the rights holder. A TRIPS IP waiver would operate outside of these types of frameworks. There would be no due process, no particularized findings, no compensation and no recourse. Indeed, the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) already has a process under the TRIPS agreement to address public health crises, including the compulsory licensing provisions, with necessary guardrails and compensation, makes quite clear that the waiver would operate as a free for all. Forced Tech Transfer Could Be on The Table When being questioned about the scope of a potential TRIPS IP waiver, Ambassador Tai invoked the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this answer suggests primarily that, in times of famine, the Administration would rather give away other people’s fishing rods than share its own plentiful supply of fish (here: actual COVID-19 vaccine stocks), it is apparent that in Ambassador Tai’s view waiving patent rights alone would not help lower- and middle-income countries produce their own vaccines. Rather, they would need to be taught how to make the vaccines and given the biotech industry’s manufacturing know-how, sensitive cell lines, and proprietary cell culture media in order to do so. In other words, Ambassador Tai acknowledged that the scope of the current TRIPS IP waiver discussions includes the concept of forced tech transfer. In the context of climate change, the idea would be that companies who develop successful methods for producing new seed technologies and sustainable biomass, reducing greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transportation, capturing and sequestering carbon in soil and products, and more, would be required to turn over their proprietary know-how to global competitors. While it is unclear how this concept would work in practice and under the constitutions of certain countries, the suggestion alone could be devastating to voluntary international collaborations. Even if one could assume that the United States could not implement forced tech transfer on its own soil, what about the governments of our international development partners? It is not hard to understand that a U.S.-based company developing climate change technologies would be unenthusiastic about partnering with a company abroad knowing that the foreign country’s government is on track – with the assent of the U.S. government – to change its laws and seize proprietary materials and know-how that had been voluntarily transferred to the local company. Necessary Investment Could Diminish Developing climate change solutions is not an easy endeavor and bad policy positions threaten the likelihood that they will materialize. These products have long lead times from research and development to market introduction, owing not only to a high rate of failure but also rigorous regulatory oversight. Significant investment is required to sustain and drive these challenging and long-enduring endeavors. For example, synthetic biology companies critical to this area of innovation raised over $1 billion in investment in the second quarter of 2019 alone. If investors cannot be confident that IP will be in place to protect important climate change technologies after their long road from bench to market, it is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. Climate Patents are critical to solving Warming – only way to stimulate Renewable Energy Technology Investment. Aberdeen 20 Arielle Aberdeen October 2020 "Patents to climate rescue: how intellectual property rights are fundamental to the development of renewable energy" https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/4516/0399/1622/Intellectual_Property_and_Renewable_Energy.pdf (Caribbean Attorney-at-Law with extensive experience in legal research and writing.)Elmer Climate change is the most pressing global challenge and with the international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement,1 there needs to be a global energy revolution and transition.2 This is where innovative technology can help meet the challenge of reducing our dependency on finite natural capital resources. The development and deployment of innovative technology play a pivotal role in enabling us to replace fossil fuel use with more sustainable energy solutions. Patents have facilitated the development of such innovative technologies thus far and will continue to be the catalyst for this transition. Patents are among a group of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’). 3 These are private and exclusive rights given for the protection of different types of intellectual creations. IPRs are the cornerstone of developed and knowledge-based economies, as they encourage innovation, drive the investment into new areas and allow for the successful commercialisation of intellectual creations. IPRs are the cornerstone of developed and knowledge-based economies. Empirical evidence has shown that a strong IPRs system influences both the development and diffusion of technology. Alternatively, weak IPRs protection has been shown to reduce innovation, reduce investment and prevent firms from entering certain markets.4 Once patent protection has been sought and granted, it gives a time-limited and exclusive rights to the creator of an invention. This allows the inventor or patentor the ability to restrict others from using, selling, or making the new invented product or process. Thereby allowing a timelimited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention in the geographical area where it is protected. During the patent application procedure, the patentor must make sufficient public disclosure of the invention. This will allow others to see, understand and improve upon it, thereby spurring continuous innovation. Therefore, the patent system through providing this economic incentive is a successful tool which has encouraged the development and the dissemination of technology. Patents like all IPRs are key instruments in the global innovation ecosystem.5 When developing innovative technology, patents play a role throughout the “technological life cycle”,6 as shown in Figure 1. This lifecycle involves the invention, research and development (‘RandD’), market development and commercial diffusion. Patents are most effective when sought at the RandD stage. Once a patent has been granted, it becomes an asset which can then be used to7: Gain Market Access: Patents can create market advantages; to develop and secure market position; to gain more freedom to operate within a sector and reduce risks of infringing on other patents; protect inventions from being copied, and removes delaying by innovative firms to release new or improved technology and encourage the expansion of their markets. Negotiation leverage: Patents can build a strong brand or company reputation which can enhance the company’s negotiation power and allow for the creation of equal partnerships. Funding: Patents can generate funding and revenue streams for companies. Having a strong patent portfolio especially in small businesses or start-ups can be used to leverage investor funding; while also be a source of revenue for companies through licensing fees, sales, tax incentives, collateral for loans and access to grants and subsidies. Strategic value: Patents can be used to build “synergistic partnerships”8 through which collaboration on RandD and other partnerships; be used to improve in-house RandD and build and/ or develop more products. As such, obtaining and managing patent as part of a patent and broader IPRs strategy are key tools for business success, especially within highly innovative and technology-driven industries.9 Renewable Energy: The Basics Renewable energy is derived from natural unlimited sources which produce little to no harmful greenhouse gases and other pollutants. 10 Innovative renewable energy technologies (‘RETs’) have created the ability to tap into these sources and convert them to energy which can then be stored, distributed, and consumed at a competitive cost. RETs have developed into a technology ecosystem which consists of alternative energy production, energy conservation and green transportation.11 For energy production, RETs have been developed to generate energy from six main sources. These are: Wind energy: Technology, via off-shore and/or on-shore wind turbines, harnesses the energy produced by the wind. Solar energy: Technology either through concentrated solar power (‘CSP’)and solar photovoltaic (‘PV’) harnesses the energy produced by the sun. Hydropower: Technology either through large-scale or small-scale hydropower plants, captures energy from flowing water. Bioenergy: Technology is used to convert organic material into energy either through burning to produce heat or power or through converting it to a liquid biofuel. Geothermal: Technology is used to capture the energy from the heat produced in the earth’s core. Ocean/Tidal energy: Technology is used to capture the energy produced from waves, tides, salinity gradient energy and ocean thermal energy conversion. Out of these six sources, the wind, solar and hydropower energy sectors are the biggest, the most developed and the most widely used. While geothermal and ocean energy sources are used in a more limited capacity. In particular, the RETs in ocean energy is still at its infancy and thus presents an opportunity for future innovation and commercialisation. Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source, with the electricity sector showing the fastest energy transition. 12 In 2016, renewable energy accounted for 12 of final global energy consumption and in 2018, a milestone was reached with renewables being used to generate 26 of global electricity. The source of this energy has been driven by renewable hydropower, as shown in Figure 2, with wind and solar energy trailing behind in energy production. However, the International Energy Agency (‘IRENA’) forecasts that Solar PV will lead RETs to increase capacity in the upcoming years. 13 This rise in renewable energy is due to the increased investment into the sector and the development, diffusion and deployment of innovative RETs. For the period between 2010 and 2019, there were 2.6 trillion US dollars invested in renewable energy. 14 The majority of which being focused on solar energy. 15 This investment has surpassed the investment made into the traditional fossil fuel energy 16 and has been heavily driven by the private sector. 17 The International Energy Agency recent report showed that its members increased the public budgets for energy technology RandD, with the biggest increase in the low-carbon sectors.18 The geographic sources of this investment shown in Figure 3, reveals that the European Union, the United States and Japan are part of the largest investors. This reflects the historic involvement these countries have had in the renewable energy arena and the development of RETs. However, there is now the emergence of China, India and Brazil as large investors in this field. This trend in investment has also coincided with the increase in patenting technology in renewable energy compared to fossil fuels.19 Reports from the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), have shown that there has been a steady increase in patent filing rates in RETs since the mid-1990s.20 This increase has occurred in the four major renewable sectors, 21 where RETs patents applications were growing steadily from 2005 until reaching a peak in 2013.22 Post-2013, there has been a slight decline in patent filings, which can indicate a maturing of sectors and deployment of technologies.23 Each renewable energy sector is at a different stage of maturity and thus there is a variation of patent ownership. The wind sector is the most mature and consequently has the highest intellectual property ownership and patent grants compared to that of the biofuel sector. 24 IRENA also provides a comprehensive and interactive database for RETs patents. As seen in Figure 4 below, they have collected patent data from the major patent filing jurisdiction25 which shows the breakdown of the patents per type. This information reveals that there is a dominance of patent filings focused on solar technology. This data corresponds to the focus of the investment in renewable energy into solar energy. Upon closer look at the data, the geographic source of these patents shows that RETs patents have been concentrated in a few developed OECD countries and China. This also corresponds to the source of investment shown in Figure 3 and reflects the historical concentration of RETs innovation within these countries. 26 The latest WIPO report for 2019, which looks at the data for PCT patent applications, shows that 76 of all PCT patent application came from the United States, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and China.27 China is the newest entry into the top ten list and has made one of the largest jumps to become one of the biggest RETs patent filers at the PCT. This geographic data is also mirrored by IRENA’s statistics, as shown in Figure 5 below. This data also reflects China’s emerging renewable dominance. China is heavily investing in solar energy technology and has filed numerous patents in this area and the underlying technologies.28 The successful flow of investment in this sector can only occur in the presence of a strong IPRs system and protection. Government policies and initiatives to improve the patent system can be used to promote the development of RETs and drive private capital and investment into this area.29 This direct effect on RETs through policies was shown in the United States with the ‘Green Tech Pilot Program’.30 This was a special accelerated patent application procedure developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for inventions falling under the green technology category. This program ran from 2009-2011 and led to a boost in RETs patent applications, with the office issuing 1062 RETs patents from the programme. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union and China have used policy and incentives to promote the development of RETs and the advancement of their renewable energy sector. In particular, the European Union and China began the renewable energy path at different starting points but are now both dominant players in this area. Warming causes Extinction Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (climate change, global freshwater cycle, and ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one another in ways that yield surprises. In addition, climate, freshwater, and ocean acidification are all directly connected to the provision of food and water, and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social unrest. Climate change has a long history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields). Climate change intersects with freshwater resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20 of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs. Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge—and may be ravaged by recurrent storms. A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes Humans are remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70 of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40 think it will harm them (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly, unlike past environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops. In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2 release which further increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on. Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified (e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, and Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, and Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti and Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, and Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al., 2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey, Stone, and Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, and Walker, 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions. The expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe with climate warming and drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, and Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres, https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-largest-wildfire). This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Record-breaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry, Schramm, and Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann and Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections (Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof, DeAngelo, Saleska, and Harte, 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013). For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, and Norris, 2009). The key lesson from the long list of potentially positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and runaway perturbations have to be taken as a serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.
10/19/21
SeptOct - DA - Climate Patents v4
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 3 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Rafael Sanchez Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment. Brand 5-26, Melissa. “Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors.” IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is precisely for this reason that it can expect to be in the crosshairs of potential IP waiver discussions. President Biden is correct to refer to climate change as an existential crisis. Yet it does not take too much effort to connect the dots between President Biden’s focus on climate change and his Administration’s recent commitment to waive global IP rights for Covid vaccines (TRIPS IP Waiver). “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.” If an IP waiver is purportedly necessary to solve the COVID-19 global health crisis (and of course we dispute this notion), can we really feel confident that this or some future Administration will not apply the same logic to the climate crisis? And, without the confidence in the underlying IP for such solutions, what does this mean for U.S. innovation and economic growth? United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai was subject to questioning along this very line during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing. And while Ambassador Tai did not affirmatively state that an IP waiver would be in the future for climate change technology, she surely did not assuage the concerns of interested parties. The United States has historically supported robust IP protection. This support is one reason the United States is the center of biotechnology innovation and leading the fight against COVID-19. However, a brief review of the domestic legislation arguably most relevant to this discussion shows just how far the international campaign against IP rights has eroded our normative position. The Clean Air Act, for example, contains a provision allowing for the mandatory licensing of patents covering certain devices for reducing air pollution. Importantly, however, the patent owner is accorded due process and the statute lays out a detailed process regulating the manner in which any such license can be issued, including findings of necessity and that no reasonable alternative method to accomplish the legislated goal exists. Also of critical importance is that the statute requires compensation to the patent holder. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act contemplates mandatory licensing of patents covering inventions of primary importance in producing or utilizing atomic energy. This statute, too, requires due process, findings of importance to the statutory goals and compensation to the rights holder. A TRIPS IP waiver would operate outside of these types of frameworks. There would be no due process, no particularized findings, no compensation and no recourse. Indeed, the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) already has a process under the TRIPS agreement to address public health crises, including the compulsory licensing provisions, with necessary guardrails and compensation, makes quite clear that the waiver would operate as a free for all. Forced Tech Transfer Could Be on The Table When being questioned about the scope of a potential TRIPS IP waiver, Ambassador Tai invoked the proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While this answer suggests primarily that, in times of famine, the Administration would rather give away other people’s fishing rods than share its own plentiful supply of fish (here: actual COVID-19 vaccine stocks), it is apparent that in Ambassador Tai’s view waiving patent rights alone would not help lower- and middle-income countries produce their own vaccines. Rather, they would need to be taught how to make the vaccines and given the biotech industry’s manufacturing know-how, sensitive cell lines, and proprietary cell culture media in order to do so. In other words, Ambassador Tai acknowledged that the scope of the current TRIPS IP waiver discussions includes the concept of forced tech transfer. In the context of climate change, the idea would be that companies who develop successful methods for producing new seed technologies and sustainable biomass, reducing greenhouse gases in manufacturing and transportation, capturing and sequestering carbon in soil and products, and more, would be required to turn over their proprietary know-how to global competitors. While it is unclear how this concept would work in practice and under the constitutions of certain countries, the suggestion alone could be devastating to voluntary international collaborations. Even if one could assume that the United States could not implement forced tech transfer on its own soil, what about the governments of our international development partners? It is not hard to understand that a U.S.-based company developing climate change technologies would be unenthusiastic about partnering with a company abroad knowing that the foreign country’s government is on track – with the assent of the U.S. government – to change its laws and seize proprietary materials and know-how that had been voluntarily transferred to the local company. Necessary Investment Could Diminish Developing climate change solutions is not an easy endeavor and bad policy positions threaten the likelihood that they will materialize. These products have long lead times from research and development to market introduction, owing not only to a high rate of failure but also rigorous regulatory oversight. Significant investment is required to sustain and drive these challenging and long-enduring endeavors. For example, synthetic biology companies critical to this area of innovation raised over $1 billion in investment in the second quarter of 2019 alone. If investors cannot be confident that IP will be in place to protect important climate change technologies after their long road from bench to market, it is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. Climate Patents are critical to solving Warming – only way to stimulate Renewable Energy Technology Investment. Aberdeen 20 Arielle Aberdeen October 2020 "Patents to climate rescue: how intellectual property rights are fundamental to the development of renewable energy" https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/4516/0399/1622/Intellectual_Property_and_Renewable_Energy.pdf (Caribbean Attorney-at-Law with extensive experience in legal research and writing.)Elmer Climate change is the most pressing global challenge and with the international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement,1 there needs to be a global energy revolution and transition.2 This is where innovative technology can help meet the challenge of reducing our dependency on finite natural capital resources. The development and deployment of innovative technology play a pivotal role in enabling us to replace fossil fuel use with more sustainable energy solutions. Patents have facilitated the development of such innovative technologies thus far and will continue to be the catalyst for this transition. Patents are among a group of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’). 3 These are private and exclusive rights given for the protection of different types of intellectual creations. IPRs are the cornerstone of developed and knowledge-based economies, as they encourage innovation, drive the investment into new areas and allow for the successful commercialisation of intellectual creations. IPRs are the cornerstone of developed and knowledge-based economies. Empirical evidence has shown that a strong IPRs system influences both the development and diffusion of technology. Alternatively, weak IPRs protection has been shown to reduce innovation, reduce investment and prevent firms from entering certain markets.4 Once patent protection has been sought and granted, it gives a time-limited and exclusive rights to the creator of an invention. This allows the inventor or patentor the ability to restrict others from using, selling, or making the new invented product or process. Thereby allowing a timelimited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention in the geographical area where it is protected. During the patent application procedure, the patentor must make sufficient public disclosure of the invention. This will allow others to see, understand and improve upon it, thereby spurring continuous innovation. Therefore, the patent system through providing this economic incentive is a successful tool which has encouraged the development and the dissemination of technology. Patents like all IPRs are key instruments in the global innovation ecosystem.5 When developing innovative technology, patents play a role throughout the “technological life cycle”,6 as shown in Figure 1. This lifecycle involves the invention, research and development (‘RandD’), market development and commercial diffusion. Patents are most effective when sought at the RandD stage. Once a patent has been granted, it becomes an asset which can then be used to7: Gain Market Access: Patents can create market advantages; to develop and secure market position; to gain more freedom to operate within a sector and reduce risks of infringing on other patents; protect inventions from being copied, and removes delaying by innovative firms to release new or improved technology and encourage the expansion of their markets. Negotiation leverage: Patents can build a strong brand or company reputation which can enhance the company’s negotiation power and allow for the creation of equal partnerships. Funding: Patents can generate funding and revenue streams for companies. Having a strong patent portfolio especially in small businesses or start-ups can be used to leverage investor funding; while also be a source of revenue for companies through licensing fees, sales, tax incentives, collateral for loans and access to grants and subsidies. Strategic value: Patents can be used to build “synergistic partnerships”8 through which collaboration on RandD and other partnerships; be used to improve in-house RandD and build and/ or develop more products. As such, obtaining and managing patent as part of a patent and broader IPRs strategy are key tools for business success, especially within highly innovative and technology-driven industries.9 Renewable Energy: The Basics Renewable energy is derived from natural unlimited sources which produce little to no harmful greenhouse gases and other pollutants. 10 Innovative renewable energy technologies (‘RETs’) have created the ability to tap into these sources and convert them to energy which can then be stored, distributed, and consumed at a competitive cost. RETs have developed into a technology ecosystem which consists of alternative energy production, energy conservation and green transportation.11 For energy production, RETs have been developed to generate energy from six main sources. These are: Wind energy: Technology, via off-shore and/or on-shore wind turbines, harnesses the energy produced by the wind. Solar energy: Technology either through concentrated solar power (‘CSP’)and solar photovoltaic (‘PV’) harnesses the energy produced by the sun. Hydropower: Technology either through large-scale or small-scale hydropower plants, captures energy from flowing water. Bioenergy: Technology is used to convert organic material into energy either through burning to produce heat or power or through converting it to a liquid biofuel. Geothermal: Technology is used to capture the energy from the heat produced in the earth’s core. Ocean/Tidal energy: Technology is used to capture the energy produced from waves, tides, salinity gradient energy and ocean thermal energy conversion. Out of these six sources, the wind, solar and hydropower energy sectors are the biggest, the most developed and the most widely used. While geothermal and ocean energy sources are used in a more limited capacity. In particular, the RETs in ocean energy is still at its infancy and thus presents an opportunity for future innovation and commercialisation. Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source, with the electricity sector showing the fastest energy transition. 12 In 2016, renewable energy accounted for 12 of final global energy consumption and in 2018, a milestone was reached with renewables being used to generate 26 of global electricity. The source of this energy has been driven by renewable hydropower, as shown in Figure 2, with wind and solar energy trailing behind in energy production. However, the International Energy Agency (‘IRENA’) forecasts that Solar PV will lead RETs to increase capacity in the upcoming years. 13 This rise in renewable energy is due to the increased investment into the sector and the development, diffusion and deployment of innovative RETs. For the period between 2010 and 2019, there were 2.6 trillion US dollars invested in renewable energy. 14 The majority of which being focused on solar energy. 15 This investment has surpassed the investment made into the traditional fossil fuel energy 16 and has been heavily driven by the private sector. 17 The International Energy Agency recent report showed that its members increased the public budgets for energy technology RandD, with the biggest increase in the low-carbon sectors.18 The geographic sources of this investment shown in Figure 3, reveals that the European Union, the United States and Japan are part of the largest investors. This reflects the historic involvement these countries have had in the renewable energy arena and the development of RETs. However, there is now the emergence of China, India and Brazil as large investors in this field. This trend in investment has also coincided with the increase in patenting technology in renewable energy compared to fossil fuels.19 Reports from the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), have shown that there has been a steady increase in patent filing rates in RETs since the mid-1990s.20 This increase has occurred in the four major renewable sectors, 21 where RETs patents applications were growing steadily from 2005 until reaching a peak in 2013.22 Post-2013, there has been a slight decline in patent filings, which can indicate a maturing of sectors and deployment of technologies.23 Each renewable energy sector is at a different stage of maturity and thus there is a variation of patent ownership. The wind sector is the most mature and consequently has the highest intellectual property ownership and patent grants compared to that of the biofuel sector. 24 IRENA also provides a comprehensive and interactive database for RETs patents. As seen in Figure 4 below, they have collected patent data from the major patent filing jurisdiction25 which shows the breakdown of the patents per type. This information reveals that there is a dominance of patent filings focused on solar technology. This data corresponds to the focus of the investment in renewable energy into solar energy. Upon closer look at the data, the geographic source of these patents shows that RETs patents have been concentrated in a few developed OECD countries and China. This also corresponds to the source of investment shown in Figure 3 and reflects the historical concentration of RETs innovation within these countries. 26 The latest WIPO report for 2019, which looks at the data for PCT patent applications, shows that 76 of all PCT patent application came from the United States, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and China.27 China is the newest entry into the top ten list and has made one of the largest jumps to become one of the biggest RETs patent filers at the PCT. This geographic data is also mirrored by IRENA’s statistics, as shown in Figure 5 below. This data also reflects China’s emerging renewable dominance. China is heavily investing in solar energy technology and has filed numerous patents in this area and the underlying technologies.28 The successful flow of investment in this sector can only occur in the presence of a strong IPRs system and protection. Government policies and initiatives to improve the patent system can be used to promote the development of RETs and drive private capital and investment into this area.29 This direct effect on RETs through policies was shown in the United States with the ‘Green Tech Pilot Program’.30 This was a special accelerated patent application procedure developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for inventions falling under the green technology category. This program ran from 2009-2011 and led to a boost in RETs patent applications, with the office issuing 1062 RETs patents from the programme. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union and China have used policy and incentives to promote the development of RETs and the advancement of their renewable energy sector. In particular, the European Union and China began the renewable energy path at different starting points but are now both dominant players in this area. Warming causes Extinction Kareiva 18, Peter, and Valerie Carranza. "Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back." Futures 102 (2018): 39-50. (Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment and Sustainability at UCLA)Re-cut by Elmer In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (climate change, global freshwater cycle, and ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one another in ways that yield surprises. In addition, climate, freshwater, and ocean acidification are all directly connected to the provision of food and water, and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social unrest. Climate change has a long history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields). Climate change intersects with freshwater resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20 of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs. Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge—and may be ravaged by recurrent storms. A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes Humans are remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70 of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40 think it will harm them (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly, unlike past environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops. In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2 release which further increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on. Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified (e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, and Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, and Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti and Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, and Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al., 2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey, Stone, and Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, and Walker, 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions. The expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe with climate warming and drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, and Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres, https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-largest-wildfire). This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Record-breaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry, Schramm, and Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann and Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections (Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof, DeAngelo, Saleska, and Harte, 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013). For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, and Norris, 2009). The key lesson from the long list of potentially positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and runaway perturbations have to be taken as a serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change. Warming entrenches Global North-South Inequality. LA Times 19 9-15-2019 "Editorial: Wealthy Countries are Responsible for Climate Change, but it's the poor who will suffer most" https://archive.is/aVCFf#selection-1989.1-2016.0Elmer Although the richest, most developed countries in the world are overwhelmingly to blame for the catastrophe of global climate change, they are not the ones who will suffer the most from it. Who will? You guessed it: the poorest countries. The unfairness of that is self-evident, but so is the truth of it. For more than a century, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, in total as well as per capita, have been the big developed nations, most notably the United States and the countries of Europe, which grew their economies by burning fossil fuels and spewing carbon from their factories, homes and cars. Today they still emit carbon and other greenhouse gasses disproportionately into the environment, although other big countries such as China and India have caught up. Yet even as the wealthy nations drive the world toward ecological disaster, it is clearly the poor countries that will face the gravest consequences and have the most difficulty coping. For instance, low-lying Bangladesh, already battered by increasingly powerful cyclones, could lose 10 of its territory to the ocean within a few decades, displacing 18 million people. Political instability and violence, influenced in part by droughts and poor harvests, have already driven millions of people from their homes in sub-Saharan Africa and Central America. A recent study from Stanford University found that climate change is exacerbating global income inequality between wealthy nations in cooler regions, and poor nations in hotter parts of the world. This is due, at least in part, to the relative inability of poorer countries to pay for the projects necessary to mitigate the effects of climate change, including more extreme weather events and the deterioration of arable land in subsistence economies. For instance, Miami Beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to raise streets and install pumps in preparation for the expected flooding from rising seas — but Port-au-Prince, Haiti, only 700 miles away, simply doesn’t have the resources for such projects. A report released last week found that extreme weather displaced 7 million people from their homes during the first half of 2019, especially in Asia and Africa. That set a new record, but researchers warned that the number of such events would increase as the climate continues to change.
Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but patent waivers set a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.
Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid The biotech industry is making remarkable advances towards climate change solutions, and it is AND is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels.
Climate Patents are critical to solving Warming – only way to stimulate Renewable Energy Technology Investment.
Aberdeen 20 Arielle Aberdeen October 2020 "Patents to climate rescue: how intellectual property rights are fundamental to the development of renewable energy" https://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/4516/0399/1622/Intellectual_Property_and_Renewable_Energy.pdf (Caribbean Attorney-at-Law with extensive experience in legal research and writing.)Elmer Climate change is the most pressing global challenge and with the international commitment to reduce AND at different starting points but are now both dominant players in this area.
Climate change destroys the world – cross apply their 1AC Sprat evidence
2/20/22
SeptOct - DA - Drug Prices
Tournament: Valley | Round: 6 | Opponent: Rosemount Cierra Phillips | Judge: Manasi Singh cites not working for this, check the os doc
9/26/21
SeptOct - DA - Infrastructure
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Plano East AW | Judge: Kartikeya Kotamraju Infrastructure passes now due to Biden and Pelosi involvement – Biden PC and tight timetables makes the margin for error literally ZERO Elliott 9-16 (Philip Elliott is a Washington Correspondent for TIME. Before joining TIME in early 2015, he spent almost a decade at The Associated Press, where he covered politics, campaign finance, education and the White House. He is a graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, September 16, 2021, accessed on 9-17-2021, Time, "Democrats Face a Grueling Two Weeks as Infighting Erupts Over Infrastructure", https://time.com/6098810/house-democrats-reconciliation/)//babcii House Democrats yesterday finished penning a 2,600-page bill that finally outlines the specifics of their ambitious “soft” infrastructure plan that won’t attract a single Republican vote. But no one was really rushing to Schneider’s for bottles of bubbly. For a party ready to spend $3.5 trillion to fund its social policy agenda, there were plenty of glum faces on Capitol Hill. In fact, one key piece of the legislation—a deal that would finally let Medicare negotiate lower prices with drug companies—fell apart in the Energy and Commerce Committee when three Democrats voted against it. It found resurrection a short time later when Leadership aides literally plucked it from the Energy and Commerce team and delivered it to the Ways and Means Committee for its approval instead. Even there, though, one Democrat voted against it, saying the threat it posed to pharmaceutical companies’ profits would doom it in the Senate. “Every moment we spend debating provisions that will never become law is a moment wasted and will delay much-needed assistance to the American people,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida later argued. Put another way? Brace for some nasty politics over the next two weeks as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tries to get this bill to a vote before the budget year ends on Sept. 30. And those 2,600 pages had better be recyclable. Democrats can only afford three defectors if they want to usher this bill into law, and they’re perilously close to failure. So far, five centrist Democrats in the House have said they prefer a scaled-back version of the Medicare component. But if Pelosi gives the five centrists that win, she risks losing the support of progressives who are already sour that things like a punitive wealth tax and the end to tax loopholes aren’t present in the current version of the bill. As it stands now, letting Medicare negotiate drug prices would save the government about $500 billion over the next decade. The scaled-back version doesn’t have an official cost, but a very similar version got its score in the Senate last year: roughly $100 billion in savings. Because Democrats are using a budgeting loophole to help them avoid a filibuster and pass this with bare majorities, that $400 billion gap matters a lot more than on most bills. Scaling back the Medicare savings means they would also have to scale back their overall spending on the bill—a big line in the sand for progressives who say they’ve already compromised too much. All of this, of course, comes as President Joe Biden and his top aides in the White House have been trying to get Senate centrists onboard. Just yesterday, he met separately with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, fellow Democrats who have expressed worries about the $3.5 trillion price tag but have been vague about what exactly they want to cut back on. With the Senate evenly divided at 50-50, and Vice President Kamala Harris in position to break the ties to Democrats’ victories, any shenanigans from those two independent thinkers scrambles the whole package. Oh, and that other bipartisan infrastructure plan that carries $550 billion in new spending? It’s still sitting on the shelf in the House. Pelosi said she’d bring it to the floor only when the bigger—and entirely partisan—bill was ready. And there’s plenty of grumbling about that package, too. If this is all beginning to sound like a scratched record that keeps repeating, it’s because this has become something of a pattern here in Washington. Things look pretty grim for legislation in town these days, despite Democrats controlling the House, the Senate and the White House. Their margin for error is literally zero, and so hiccups from a half-dozen centrists can forewarn a doomed agenda. So far, Pelosi has been a master of holding the line on crucial votes and has managed to maneuver her team to victories, including on an earlier pandemic relief package that passed with only Democratic votes. Now she’s trying again, but the clock is ticking, and $3.5 trillion is an eye-popping sum of money that rivals the spending the United States unleashed to close out World War II. Attacks on Pharmaceutical Profits triggers Mod Dem Backlash – it disrupts unity. Cohen 9-6 Joshua Cohen 9-6-2021 "Democrats’ Plans To Introduce Prescription Drug Pricing Reform Face Formidable Obstacles" https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/09/06/democrats-plans-to-introduce-prescription-drug-pricing-reform-face-obstacles/?sh=37a269917395 (independent healthcare analyst with over 22 years of experience analyzing healthcare and pharmaceuticals.)Elmer There’s considerable uncertainty regarding passage with a simple majority of the 2021 massive budget reconciliation bill. Last week, Senator Joe Manchin called on Democrats to pause pushing forward the budget reconciliation bill. If Manchin winds up saying no to the bill, this would scuttle it as the Democrats can’t afford to lose a single Senator. And, there’s speculation that provisions to reduce prescription drug prices may be watered down and not incorporate international price referencing. Additionally, reduced prices derived through Medicare negotiation may not be able to be applied to those with employer-based coverage. While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party supports drug pricing reform, several key centrist Democrats in both the House and Senate appear to be uncomfortable with particular aspects of the budget reconciliation bill, including a potential deal-breaker, namely the potential negative impact of drug price controls on the domestic pharmaceutical industry, as well as long-term patient access to new drugs. A paper released in 2019 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the proposed legislation, H.R. 3, would reduce global revenue for new drugs by 19, leading to 8 fewer drugs approved in the U.S. between 2020 and 2029, and 30 fewer drugs over the next decade. And, a new report from the CBO reinforces the message that drug pricing legislation under consideration in Congress could lead to fewer new drugs being developed and launched. Intense lobbying efforts from biopharmaceutical industry groups are underway, warning of what they deem are harms from price controls in the form of diminished patient access to new innovations. The argument, based in part on assumptions and modeling included in the CBO reports, asserts that price controls would dampen investment critical to the biopharmaceutical industry’s pipeline of drugs and biologics. This won’t sway most Democrats, but has been a traditional talking point in the Republican Party for decades, and may convince some centrist Democrats to withdraw backing of provisions that in their eyes stymie pharmaceutical innovation. If the budget reconciliation bill would fail to garner a majority, a pared down version of H.R. 3, or perhaps a new bill altogether, with Senator Wyden spearheading the effort, could eventually land in the Senate. But, a similar set of provisos would apply, as majority support in both chambers would be far from a sure thing. In brief, Democrats’ plans at both the executive and legislative branch levels to introduce prescription drug pricing reform encounter challenges which may prevent impactful modifications from taking place. Sinema specifically jumps Ship. Hancock and Lucas 20 Jay Hancock and Elizabeth Lucas 5-29-2020 "A Senator From Arizona Emerges As A Pharma Favorite" https://khn.org/news/a-senator-from-arizona-emerges-as-a-pharma-favorite/ (Senior Correspondent, joined KHN in 2012 from The Baltimore Sun, where he wrote a column on business and finance. Previously he covered the State Department and the economics beat for The Sun and health care for The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk and the Daily Press of Newport News. He has a bachelor’s degree from Colgate University and a master’s in journalism from Northwestern University.)Elmer Sen. Kyrsten Sinema formed a congressional caucus to raise “awareness of the benefits of personalized medicine” in February. Soon after that, employees of pharmaceutical companies donated $35,000 to her campaign committee. Amgen gave $5,000. So did Genentech and Merck. Sanofi, Pfizer and Eli Lilly all gave $2,500. Each of those companies has invested heavily in personalized medicine, which promises individually tailored drugs that can cost a patient hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sinema is a first-term Democrat from Arizona but has nonetheless emerged as a pharma favorite in Congress as the industry steers through a new political and economic landscape formed by the coronavirus. She is a leading recipient of pharma campaign cash even though she’s not up for reelection until 2024 and lacks major committee or subcommittee leadership posts. For the 2019-20 election cycle through March, political action committees run by employees of drug companies and their trade groups gave her $98,500 in campaign funds, Kaiser Health News’ Pharma Cash to Congress database shows. That stands out in a Congress in which a third of the members got no pharma cash for the period and half of those who did got $10,000 or less. The contributions give companies a chance to cultivate Sinema as she restocks from a brutal 2018 election victory that cost nearly $25 million. Altogether, pharma PACs have so far given $9.2 million to congressional campaign chests in this cycle, compared with $9.4 million at this point in the 2017-18 period, a sustained surge as the industry has responded to complaints about soaring prices. Sinema’s pharma haul was twice that of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans in November, and approached that of fellow Democrat Steny Hoyer, the powerful House majority leader from Maryland. It all adds up to a bet by drug companies that the 43-year-old Sinema, first elected to the Senate in 2018, will gain influence in coming years and serve as an industry ally in a party that also includes many lawmakers harshly critical of high drug prices and the companies that set them. Pharma backlash independently turns Case. Huetteman 19 Emmarie Huetteman 2-26-2019 “Senators Who Led Pharma-Friendly Patent Reform Also Prime Targets For Pharma Cash” https://khn.org/news/senators-who-led-pharma-friendly-patent-reform-also-prime-targets-for-pharma-cash/ (former NYT Congressional correspondent with an MA in public affairs reporting from Northwestern University’s Medill School)Elmer Early last year, as lawmakers vowed to curb rising drug prices, Sen. Thom Tillis was named chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on intellectual property rights, a committee that had not met since 2007. As the new gatekeeper for laws and oversight of the nation’s patent system, the North Carolina Republican signaled he was determined to make it easier for American businesses to benefit from it — a welcome message to the drugmakers who already leverage patents to block competitors and keep prices high. Less than three weeks after introducing a bill that would make it harder for generic drugmakers to compete with patent-holding drugmakers, Tillis opened the subcommittee’s first meeting on Feb. 26, 2019, with his own vow. “From the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the State Department’s Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, no department or bureau is too big or too small for this subcommittee to take interest,” he said. “And we will.” In the months that followed, tens of thousands of dollars flowed from pharmaceutical companies toward his campaign, as well as to the campaigns of other subcommittee members — including some who promised to stop drugmakers from playing money-making games with the patent system, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Tillis received more than $156,000 from political action committees tied to drug manufacturers in 2019, more than any other member of Congress, a new analysis of KHN’s Pharma Cash to Congress database shows. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee who worked side by side with Tillis, received more than $124,000 in drugmaker contributions last year, making him the No. 3 recipient in Congress. No. 2 was Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who took in about $139,000. As the Senate majority leader, he controls what legislation gets voted on by the Senate. Neither Tillis nor Coons sits on the Senate committees that introduced legislation last year to lower drug prices through methods like capping price increases to the rate of inflation. Of the four senators who drafted those bills, none received more than $76,000 from drug manufacturers in 2019. Tillis and Coons spent much of last year working on significant legislation that would expand the range of items eligible to be patented — a change that some experts say would make it easier for companies developing medical tests and treatments to own things that aren’t traditionally inventions, like genetic code. They have not yet officially introduced a bill. As obscure as patents might seem in an era of public outrage over drug prices, the fact that drugmakers gave most to the lawmakers working to change the patent system belies how important securing the exclusive right to market a drug, and keep competitors at bay, is to their bottom line. “Pharma will fight to the death to preserve patent rights,” said Robin Feldman, a professor at the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who is an expert in intellectual property rights and drug pricing. “Strong patent rights are central to the games drug companies play to extend their monopolies and keep prices high.” Campaign contributions, closely tracked by the Federal Election Commission, are among the few windows into how much money flows from the political groups of drugmakers and other companies to the lawmakers and their campaigns. Private companies generally give money to members of Congress to encourage them to listen to the companies, typically through lobbyists, whose activities are difficult to track. They may also communicate through so-called dark money groups, which are not required to report who gives them money. Over the past 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent about $233 million per year on lobbying, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That is more than any other industry, including the oil and gas industry. Why Patents Matter Developing and testing a new drug, and gaining approval from the Food and Drug Administration, can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Drugmakers are generally granted a six- or seven-year exclusivity period to recoup their investments. But drugmakers have found ways to extend that period of exclusivity, sometimes accumulating hundreds of patents on the same drug and blocking competition for decades. One method is to patent many inventions beyond a drug’s active ingredient, such as patenting the injection device that administers the drug. Keeping that arrangement intact, or expanding what can be patented, is where lawmakers come in. Lawmakers Dig In Tillis’ home state of North Carolina is also home to three major research universities and, not coincidentally, multiple drugmakers’ headquarters, factories and other facilities. From his swearing-in in 2015 to the end of 2018, Tillis received about $160,000 from drugmakers based there or beyond. He almost matched that four-year total in 2019 alone, in the midst of a difficult reelection campaign to be decided this fall. He has raised nearly $10 million for his campaign, with lobbyists among his biggest contributors, according to OpenSecrets. Daniel Keylin, a spokesperson for Tillis, said Tillis and Coons, the subcommittee’s top Democrat, are working to overhaul the country’s “antiquated intellectual property laws.” Keylin said the bipartisan effort protects the development and access to affordable, lifesaving medication for patients,” adding: “No contribution has any impact on how Tillis votes or legislates.” Tillis signaled his openness to the drug industry early on. The day before being named chairman, he reintroduced a bill that would limit the options generic drugmakers have to challenge allegedly invalid patents, effectively helping brand-name drugmakers protect their monopolies. Former Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), whose warm relationship with the drug industry was well-known, had introduced the legislation, the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act, just days before his retirement in 2018. At his subcommittee’s first hearing, Tillis said the members would rely on testimony from private businesses to guide them. He promised to hold hearings on patent eligibility standards and “reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” In practice, the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act would require generics makers challenging another drugmaker’s patent to either take their claim to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which acts as a sort of cheaper, faster quality check to catch bad patents, or file a lawsuit. A study released last year found that, since Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2011, it has narrowed or overturned about 51 of the drugmaker patents that generics makers have challenged. Feldman said the drug industry “went berserk” over the number of patents the board changed and has been eager to limit use of the board as much as possible. Patent reviewers are often stretched thin and sometimes make mistakes, said Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who is an expert in intellectual property rights and drug development. Limiting the ways to challenge patents, as Tillis’ bill would, does not strengthen the patent system, he said. “You want overlapping oversight for a system that is as important and fundamental as this system is,” he said. As promised, Tillis and Coons also spent much of the year working on so-called Section 101 reform regarding what is eligible to be patented — “a very major change” that “would overturn more than a century of Supreme Court law,” Feldman said. Sean Coit, Coons’ spokesperson, said lowering drug prices is one of the senator’s top priorities and pointed to Coon’s support for legislation the pharmaceutical industry opposes. “One of the reasons Senator Coons is leading efforts in Congress to fix our broken patent system is so that life-saving medicines can actually be developed and produced at affordable prices for every American,” Coit wrote in an email, adding that “his work on Section 101 reform has brought together advocates from across the spectrum, including academics and health experts.” In August, when much of Capitol Hill had emptied for summer recess, Tillis and Coons held closed-door meetings to preview their legislation to stakeholders, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the brand-name drug industry’s lobbying group. “We regularly engage with members of Congress in both parties to advance practical policy solutions that will lower medicine costs for patients,” said Holly Campbell, a PhRMA spokesperson. Neither proposal has received a public hearing. In the 30 days before Tillis and Coons were named leaders of the revived subcommittee, drug manufacturers gave them $21,000 from their political action committees. In the 30 days following that first hearing, Tillis and Coons received $60,000. Among their donors were PhRMA; the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the biotech lobbying group; and five of the seven drugmakers whose executives — as Tillis laid out a pharma-friendly agenda for his new subcommittee — were getting chewed out by senators in a different hearing room over patent abuse. Cornyn Goes After Patent Abuse Richard Gonzalez, chief executive of AbbVie Inc., the company known for its top-selling drug, Humira, had spent the morning sitting stone-faced before the Senate Finance Committee as, one after another, senators excoriated him and six other executives of brand-name drug manufacturers over how they price their products. Cornyn brought up AbbVie’s more than 130 patents on Humira. Hadn’t the company blocked its competition? Cornyn asked Gonzalez, who carefully explained how AbbVie’s lawsuit against a generics competitor and subsequent licensing deal was not what he would describe as anti-competitive behavior. “I realize it may not be popular,” Gonzalez said. “But I think it is a reasonable balance.” A minute later, Cornyn turned to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who, like Cornyn, was also a member of the revived intellectual property subcommittee. This is worth looking into with “our Judiciary Committee authorities as well,” Cornyn said, effectively threatening legislation on patent abuse. The next day, Mylan, one of the largest producers of generic drugs, gave Cornyn $5,000, FEC records show. The company had not donated to Cornyn in years. By midsummer, every drug company that sent an executive to that hearing had given money to Cornyn, including AbbVie. Cornyn, who faces perhaps the most difficult reelection fight of his career this fall, ranks No. 6 among members of Congress in drugmaker PAC contributions last year, KHN’s analysis shows. He received about $104,000. Cornyn has received about $708,500 from drugmakers since 2007, KHN’s database shows. According to OpenSecrets, he has raised more than $17 million for this year’s reelection campaign. Cornyn’s office declined to comment. On May 9, Cornyn and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, which proposed to define two tactics used by drug companies to make it easier for the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute them: “product-hopping,” when drugmakers withdraw older versions of their drugs from the market to push patients toward newer, more expensive ones, and “patent-thicketing,” when drugmakers amass a series of patents to drag out their exclusivity and slow rival generics makers, who must challenge those patents to enter the market once the initial exclusivity ends. PhRMA opposed the bill. The next day, it gave Cornyn $1,000. Cornyn and Blumenthal’s bill would have been “very tough on the techniques that pharmaceutical companies use to extend patent protections and to keep prices high,” Feldman said. “The pharmaceutical industry lobbied tooth and nail against it,” she said. “And when the bill finally came out of committee, the strongest provisions — the patent-thicketing provisions — had been stripped.” In the months after the bill cleared committee and waited to be taken up by the Senate, Cornyn blamed Senate Democrats for blocking the bill while trying to secure votes on legislation with more direct controls on drug prices. The Senate has not voted on the bill. Infrastructure reform solves Existential Climate Change – it results in spill-over. USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/Elmer Not long ago, climate change for many Americans was like a distant bell. News of starving polar bears or melting glaciers was tragic and disturbing, but other worldly. Not any more. Top climate scientists from around the world warned of a "code red for humanity" in a report issued Monday that says severe, human-caused global warming is become unassailable. Proof of the findings by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a now a factor of daily life. Due to intense heat waves and drought, 107 wildfires – including the largest ever in California – are now raging across the West, consuming 2.3 million acres. Earlier this summer, hundreds of people died in unprecedented triple-digit heat in Oregon, Washington and western Canada, when a "heat dome" of enormous proportions settled over the region for days. Some victims brought by stretcher into crowded hospital wards had body temperatures so high, their nervous systems had shut down. People collapsed trying to make their way to cooling shelters. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases Scientists say the event was almost certainly made worse and more intransigent by human-caused climate change. They attribute it to a combination of warming Arctic temperatures and a growing accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The consequences of what mankind has done to the atmosphere are now inescapable. Periods of extreme heat are projected to double in the lower 48 states by 2100. Heat deaths are far outpacing every other form of weather killer in a 30-year average. A persistent megadrought in America's West continues to create tinder-dry conditions that augur another devastating wildfire season. And scientists say warming oceans are fueling ever more powerful storms, evidenced by Elsa and the early arrival of hurricane season this year. Increasingly severe weather is causing an estimated $100 billion in damage to the United States every year. "It is honestly surreal to see your projections manifesting themselves in real time, with all the suffering that accompanies them. It is heartbreaking," said climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Rising seas from global warming Investigators are still trying to determine what led to the collapse of a Miami-area condominium that left more than 100 dead or missing. But one concerning factor is the corrosive effect on reinforced steel structures of encroaching saltwater, made worse in Florida by a foot of rising seas from global warming since the 1900s. The clock is ticking for planet Earth. While the U.N. report concludes some level of severe climate change is now unavoidable, there is still a window of time when far more catastrophic events can be mitigated. But mankind must act soon to curb the release of heat-trapping gases. Global temperature has risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era of the late 19th century. Scientists warn that in a decade, it could surpass a 2.7-degree increase. That's enough warming to cause catastrophic climate changes. After a brief decline in global greenhouse gas emissions during the pandemic, pollution is on the rise. Years that could have been devoted to addressing the crisis were wasted during a feckless period of inaction by the Trump administration. Congress must act Joe Biden won the presidency promising broad new policies to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions. But Congress needs to act on those ideas this year. Democrats cannot risk losing narrow control of one or both chambers of Congress in the 2022 elections to a Republican Party too long resistant to meaningful action on the climate. So what's at issue? A trillion dollar infrastructure bill negotiated between Biden and a group of centrist senators (including 10 Republicans) is a start. In addition to repairing bridges, roads and rails, it would improve access by the nation's power infrastructure to renewable energy sources, cap millions of abandoned oil and gas wells spewing greenhouse gases, and harden structures against climate change. It also offers tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and funds the construction of charging stations. (The nation's largest source of climate pollution are gas-powered vehicles.) Senate approval could come very soon. Much more is needed if the nation is going to reach Biden's necessary goal of cutting U.S. climate pollution in half from 2005 levels by 2030. His ideas worth considering include a federal clean electricity standard for utilities, federal investments and tax credits to promote renewable energy, and tens of billions of dollars in clean energy research and development, including into ways of extracting greenhouse gases from the skies. Another idea worth considering is a fully refundable carbon tax. The vehicle for these additional proposals would be a second infrastructure bill. And if Republicans balk at the cost of such vital investment, Biden is rightly proposing to pass this package through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows bills to clear the Senate with a simple majority vote. These are drastic legislative steps. But drastic times call for them. And when Biden attends a U.N. climate conference in November, he can use American progress on climate change as a mean of persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option.
9/18/21
SeptOct - DA - Infrastructure v2
Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Plano Independent Nathan Gong | Judge: Benjamin Morbeck Infrastructure passes now due to Biden and Pelosi involvement – Biden PC and tight timetables makes the margin for error literally ZERO Elliott 9-16 (Philip Elliott is a Washington Correspondent for TIME. Before joining TIME in early 2015, he spent almost a decade at The Associated Press, where he covered politics, campaign finance, education and the White House. He is a graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, September 16, 2021, accessed on 9-17-2021, Time, "Democrats Face a Grueling Two Weeks as Infighting Erupts Over Infrastructure", https://time.com/6098810/house-democrats-reconciliation/)//babcii House Democrats yesterday finished penning a 2,600-page bill that finally outlines the specifics of their ambitious “soft” infrastructure plan that won’t attract a single Republican vote. But no one was really rushing to Schneider’s for bottles of bubbly. For a party ready to spend $3.5 trillion to fund its social policy agenda, there were plenty of glum faces on Capitol Hill. In fact, one key piece of the legislation—a deal that would finally let Medicare negotiate lower prices with drug companies—fell apart in the Energy and Commerce Committee when three Democrats voted against it. It found resurrection a short time later when Leadership aides literally plucked it from the Energy and Commerce team and delivered it to the Ways and Means Committee for its approval instead. Even there, though, one Democrat voted against it, saying the threat it posed to pharmaceutical companies’ profits would doom it in the Senate. “Every moment we spend debating provisions that will never become law is a moment wasted and will delay much-needed assistance to the American people,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida later argued. Put another way? Brace for some nasty politics over the next two weeks as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tries to get this bill to a vote before the budget year ends on Sept. 30. And those 2,600 pages had better be recyclable. Democrats can only afford three defectors if they want to usher this bill into law, and they’re perilously close to failure. So far, five centrist Democrats in the House have said they prefer a scaled-back version of the Medicare component. But if Pelosi gives the five centrists that win, she risks losing the support of progressives who are already sour that things like a punitive wealth tax and the end to tax loopholes aren’t present in the current version of the bill. As it stands now, letting Medicare negotiate drug prices would save the government about $500 billion over the next decade. The scaled-back version doesn’t have an official cost, but a very similar version got its score in the Senate last year: roughly $100 billion in savings. Because Democrats are using a budgeting loophole to help them avoid a filibuster and pass this with bare majorities, that $400 billion gap matters a lot more than on most bills. Scaling back the Medicare savings means they would also have to scale back their overall spending on the bill—a big line in the sand for progressives who say they’ve already compromised too much. All of this, of course, comes as President Joe Biden and his top aides in the White House have been trying to get Senate centrists onboard. Just yesterday, he met separately with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, fellow Democrats who have expressed worries about the $3.5 trillion price tag but have been vague about what exactly they want to cut back on. With the Senate evenly divided at 50-50, and Vice President Kamala Harris in position to break the ties to Democrats’ victories, any shenanigans from those two independent thinkers scrambles the whole package. Oh, and that other bipartisan infrastructure plan that carries $550 billion in new spending? It’s still sitting on the shelf in the House. Pelosi said she’d bring it to the floor only when the bigger—and entirely partisan—bill was ready. And there’s plenty of grumbling about that package, too. If this is all beginning to sound like a scratched record that keeps repeating, it’s because this has become something of a pattern here in Washington. Things look pretty grim for legislation in town these days, despite Democrats controlling the House, the Senate and the White House. Their margin for error is literally zero, and so hiccups from a half-dozen centrists can forewarn a doomed agenda. So far, Pelosi has been a master of holding the line on crucial votes and has managed to maneuver her team to victories, including on an earlier pandemic relief package that passed with only Democratic votes. Now she’s trying again, but the clock is ticking, and $3.5 trillion is an eye-popping sum of money that rivals the spending the United States unleashed to close out World War II. Attacks on Pharmaceutical Profits triggers Mod Dem Backlash – it disrupts unity. Cohen 9-6 Joshua Cohen 9-6-2021 "Democrats’ Plans To Introduce Prescription Drug Pricing Reform Face Formidable Obstacles" https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/09/06/democrats-plans-to-introduce-prescription-drug-pricing-reform-face-obstacles/?sh=37a269917395 (independent healthcare analyst with over 22 years of experience analyzing healthcare and pharmaceuticals.)Elmer There’s considerable uncertainty regarding passage with a simple majority of the 2021 massive budget reconciliation bill. Last week, Senator Joe Manchin called on Democrats to pause pushing forward the budget reconciliation bill. If Manchin winds up saying no to the bill, this would scuttle it as the Democrats can’t afford to lose a single Senator. And, there’s speculation that provisions to reduce prescription drug prices may be watered down and not incorporate international price referencing. Additionally, reduced prices derived through Medicare negotiation may not be able to be applied to those with employer-based coverage. While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party supports drug pricing reform, several key centrist Democrats in both the House and Senate appear to be uncomfortable with particular aspects of the budget reconciliation bill, including a potential deal-breaker, namely the potential negative impact of drug price controls on the domestic pharmaceutical industry, as well as long-term patient access to new drugs. A paper released in 2019 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the proposed legislation, H.R. 3, would reduce global revenue for new drugs by 19, leading to 8 fewer drugs approved in the U.S. between 2020 and 2029, and 30 fewer drugs over the next decade. And, a new report from the CBO reinforces the message that drug pricing legislation under consideration in Congress could lead to fewer new drugs being developed and launched. Intense lobbying efforts from biopharmaceutical industry groups are underway, warning of what they deem are harms from price controls in the form of diminished patient access to new innovations. The argument, based in part on assumptions and modeling included in the CBO reports, asserts that price controls would dampen investment critical to the biopharmaceutical industry’s pipeline of drugs and biologics. This won’t sway most Democrats, but has been a traditional talking point in the Republican Party for decades, and may convince some centrist Democrats to withdraw backing of provisions that in their eyes stymie pharmaceutical innovation. If the budget reconciliation bill would fail to garner a majority, a pared down version of H.R. 3, or perhaps a new bill altogether, with Senator Wyden spearheading the effort, could eventually land in the Senate. But, a similar set of provisos would apply, as majority support in both chambers would be far from a sure thing. In brief, Democrats’ plans at both the executive and legislative branch levels to introduce prescription drug pricing reform encounter challenges which may prevent impactful modifications from taking place. Sinema specifically jumps Ship. Hancock and Lucas 20 Jay Hancock and Elizabeth Lucas 5-29-2020 "A Senator From Arizona Emerges As A Pharma Favorite" https://khn.org/news/a-senator-from-arizona-emerges-as-a-pharma-favorite/ (Senior Correspondent, joined KHN in 2012 from The Baltimore Sun, where he wrote a column on business and finance. Previously he covered the State Department and the economics beat for The Sun and health care for The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk and the Daily Press of Newport News. He has a bachelor’s degree from Colgate University and a master’s in journalism from Northwestern University.)Elmer Sen. Kyrsten Sinema formed a congressional caucus to raise “awareness of the benefits of personalized medicine” in February. Soon after that, employees of pharmaceutical companies donated $35,000 to her campaign committee. Amgen gave $5,000. So did Genentech and Merck. Sanofi, Pfizer and Eli Lilly all gave $2,500. Each of those companies has invested heavily in personalized medicine, which promises individually tailored drugs that can cost a patient hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sinema is a first-term Democrat from Arizona but has nonetheless emerged as a pharma favorite in Congress as the industry steers through a new political and economic landscape formed by the coronavirus. She is a leading recipient of pharma campaign cash even though she’s not up for reelection until 2024 and lacks major committee or subcommittee leadership posts. For the 2019-20 election cycle through March, political action committees run by employees of drug companies and their trade groups gave her $98,500 in campaign funds, Kaiser Health News’ Pharma Cash to Congress database shows. That stands out in a Congress in which a third of the members got no pharma cash for the period and half of those who did got $10,000 or less. The contributions give companies a chance to cultivate Sinema as she restocks from a brutal 2018 election victory that cost nearly $25 million. Altogether, pharma PACs have so far given $9.2 million to congressional campaign chests in this cycle, compared with $9.4 million at this point in the 2017-18 period, a sustained surge as the industry has responded to complaints about soaring prices. Sinema’s pharma haul was twice that of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans in November, and approached that of fellow Democrat Steny Hoyer, the powerful House majority leader from Maryland. It all adds up to a bet by drug companies that the 43-year-old Sinema, first elected to the Senate in 2018, will gain influence in coming years and serve as an industry ally in a party that also includes many lawmakers harshly critical of high drug prices and the companies that set them. Pharma backlash independently turns Case. Huetteman 19 Emmarie Huetteman 2-26-2019 “Senators Who Led Pharma-Friendly Patent Reform Also Prime Targets For Pharma Cash” https://khn.org/news/senators-who-led-pharma-friendly-patent-reform-also-prime-targets-for-pharma-cash/ (former NYT Congressional correspondent with an MA in public affairs reporting from Northwestern University’s Medill School)Elmer Early last year, as lawmakers vowed to curb rising drug prices, Sen. Thom Tillis was named chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on intellectual property rights, a committee that had not met since 2007. As the new gatekeeper for laws and oversight of the nation’s patent system, the North Carolina Republican signaled he was determined to make it easier for American businesses to benefit from it — a welcome message to the drugmakers who already leverage patents to block competitors and keep prices high. Less than three weeks after introducing a bill that would make it harder for generic drugmakers to compete with patent-holding drugmakers, Tillis opened the subcommittee’s first meeting on Feb. 26, 2019, with his own vow. “From the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the State Department’s Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, no department or bureau is too big or too small for this subcommittee to take interest,” he said. “And we will.” In the months that followed, tens of thousands of dollars flowed from pharmaceutical companies toward his campaign, as well as to the campaigns of other subcommittee members — including some who promised to stop drugmakers from playing money-making games with the patent system, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Tillis received more than $156,000 from political action committees tied to drug manufacturers in 2019, more than any other member of Congress, a new analysis of KHN’s Pharma Cash to Congress database shows. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee who worked side by side with Tillis, received more than $124,000 in drugmaker contributions last year, making him the No. 3 recipient in Congress. No. 2 was Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who took in about $139,000. As the Senate majority leader, he controls what legislation gets voted on by the Senate. Neither Tillis nor Coons sits on the Senate committees that introduced legislation last year to lower drug prices through methods like capping price increases to the rate of inflation. Of the four senators who drafted those bills, none received more than $76,000 from drug manufacturers in 2019. Tillis and Coons spent much of last year working on significant legislation that would expand the range of items eligible to be patented — a change that some experts say would make it easier for companies developing medical tests and treatments to own things that aren’t traditionally inventions, like genetic code. They have not yet officially introduced a bill. As obscure as patents might seem in an era of public outrage over drug prices, the fact that drugmakers gave most to the lawmakers working to change the patent system belies how important securing the exclusive right to market a drug, and keep competitors at bay, is to their bottom line. “Pharma will fight to the death to preserve patent rights,” said Robin Feldman, a professor at the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who is an expert in intellectual property rights and drug pricing. “Strong patent rights are central to the games drug companies play to extend their monopolies and keep prices high.” Campaign contributions, closely tracked by the Federal Election Commission, are among the few windows into how much money flows from the political groups of drugmakers and other companies to the lawmakers and their campaigns. Private companies generally give money to members of Congress to encourage them to listen to the companies, typically through lobbyists, whose activities are difficult to track. They may also communicate through so-called dark money groups, which are not required to report who gives them money. Over the past 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent about $233 million per year on lobbying, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That is more than any other industry, including the oil and gas industry. Why Patents Matter Developing and testing a new drug, and gaining approval from the Food and Drug Administration, can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Drugmakers are generally granted a six- or seven-year exclusivity period to recoup their investments. But drugmakers have found ways to extend that period of exclusivity, sometimes accumulating hundreds of patents on the same drug and blocking competition for decades. One method is to patent many inventions beyond a drug’s active ingredient, such as patenting the injection device that administers the drug. Keeping that arrangement intact, or expanding what can be patented, is where lawmakers come in. Lawmakers Dig In Tillis’ home state of North Carolina is also home to three major research universities and, not coincidentally, multiple drugmakers’ headquarters, factories and other facilities. From his swearing-in in 2015 to the end of 2018, Tillis received about $160,000 from drugmakers based there or beyond. He almost matched that four-year total in 2019 alone, in the midst of a difficult reelection campaign to be decided this fall. He has raised nearly $10 million for his campaign, with lobbyists among his biggest contributors, according to OpenSecrets. Daniel Keylin, a spokesperson for Tillis, said Tillis and Coons, the subcommittee’s top Democrat, are working to overhaul the country’s “antiquated intellectual property laws.” Keylin said the bipartisan effort protects the development and access to affordable, lifesaving medication for patients,” adding: “No contribution has any impact on how Tillis votes or legislates.” Tillis signaled his openness to the drug industry early on. The day before being named chairman, he reintroduced a bill that would limit the options generic drugmakers have to challenge allegedly invalid patents, effectively helping brand-name drugmakers protect their monopolies. Former Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), whose warm relationship with the drug industry was well-known, had introduced the legislation, the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act, just days before his retirement in 2018. At his subcommittee’s first hearing, Tillis said the members would rely on testimony from private businesses to guide them. He promised to hold hearings on patent eligibility standards and “reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” In practice, the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act would require generics makers challenging another drugmaker’s patent to either take their claim to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which acts as a sort of cheaper, faster quality check to catch bad patents, or file a lawsuit. A study released last year found that, since Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2011, it has narrowed or overturned about 51 of the drugmaker patents that generics makers have challenged. Feldman said the drug industry “went berserk” over the number of patents the board changed and has been eager to limit use of the board as much as possible. Patent reviewers are often stretched thin and sometimes make mistakes, said Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who is an expert in intellectual property rights and drug development. Limiting the ways to challenge patents, as Tillis’ bill would, does not strengthen the patent system, he said. “You want overlapping oversight for a system that is as important and fundamental as this system is,” he said. As promised, Tillis and Coons also spent much of the year working on so-called Section 101 reform regarding what is eligible to be patented — “a very major change” that “would overturn more than a century of Supreme Court law,” Feldman said. Sean Coit, Coons’ spokesperson, said lowering drug prices is one of the senator’s top priorities and pointed to Coon’s support for legislation the pharmaceutical industry opposes. “One of the reasons Senator Coons is leading efforts in Congress to fix our broken patent system is so that life-saving medicines can actually be developed and produced at affordable prices for every American,” Coit wrote in an email, adding that “his work on Section 101 reform has brought together advocates from across the spectrum, including academics and health experts.” In August, when much of Capitol Hill had emptied for summer recess, Tillis and Coons held closed-door meetings to preview their legislation to stakeholders, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the brand-name drug industry’s lobbying group. “We regularly engage with members of Congress in both parties to advance practical policy solutions that will lower medicine costs for patients,” said Holly Campbell, a PhRMA spokesperson. Neither proposal has received a public hearing. In the 30 days before Tillis and Coons were named leaders of the revived subcommittee, drug manufacturers gave them $21,000 from their political action committees. In the 30 days following that first hearing, Tillis and Coons received $60,000. Among their donors were PhRMA; the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the biotech lobbying group; and five of the seven drugmakers whose executives — as Tillis laid out a pharma-friendly agenda for his new subcommittee — were getting chewed out by senators in a different hearing room over patent abuse. Cornyn Goes After Patent Abuse Richard Gonzalez, chief executive of AbbVie Inc., the company known for its top-selling drug, Humira, had spent the morning sitting stone-faced before the Senate Finance Committee as, one after another, senators excoriated him and six other executives of brand-name drug manufacturers over how they price their products. Cornyn brought up AbbVie’s more than 130 patents on Humira. Hadn’t the company blocked its competition? Cornyn asked Gonzalez, who carefully explained how AbbVie’s lawsuit against a generics competitor and subsequent licensing deal was not what he would describe as anti-competitive behavior. “I realize it may not be popular,” Gonzalez said. “But I think it is a reasonable balance.” A minute later, Cornyn turned to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who, like Cornyn, was also a member of the revived intellectual property subcommittee. This is worth looking into with “our Judiciary Committee authorities as well,” Cornyn said, effectively threatening legislation on patent abuse. The next day, Mylan, one of the largest producers of generic drugs, gave Cornyn $5,000, FEC records show. The company had not donated to Cornyn in years. By midsummer, every drug company that sent an executive to that hearing had given money to Cornyn, including AbbVie. Cornyn, who faces perhaps the most difficult reelection fight of his career this fall, ranks No. 6 among members of Congress in drugmaker PAC contributions last year, KHN’s analysis shows. He received about $104,000. Cornyn has received about $708,500 from drugmakers since 2007, KHN’s database shows. According to OpenSecrets, he has raised more than $17 million for this year’s reelection campaign. Cornyn’s office declined to comment. On May 9, Cornyn and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, which proposed to define two tactics used by drug companies to make it easier for the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute them: “product-hopping,” when drugmakers withdraw older versions of their drugs from the market to push patients toward newer, more expensive ones, and “patent-thicketing,” when drugmakers amass a series of patents to drag out their exclusivity and slow rival generics makers, who must challenge those patents to enter the market once the initial exclusivity ends. PhRMA opposed the bill. The next day, it gave Cornyn $1,000. Cornyn and Blumenthal’s bill would have been “very tough on the techniques that pharmaceutical companies use to extend patent protections and to keep prices high,” Feldman said. “The pharmaceutical industry lobbied tooth and nail against it,” she said. “And when the bill finally came out of committee, the strongest provisions — the patent-thicketing provisions — had been stripped.” In the months after the bill cleared committee and waited to be taken up by the Senate, Cornyn blamed Senate Democrats for blocking the bill while trying to secure votes on legislation with more direct controls on drug prices. The Senate has not voted on the bill. Infrastructure reform solves Climate Change – it results in spill-over USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/Elmer Not long ago, climate change for many Americans was like a distant bell. News of starving polar bears or melting glaciers was tragic and disturbing, but other worldly. Not any more. Top climate scientists from around the world warned of a "code red for humanity" in a report issued Monday that says severe, human-caused global warming is become unassailable. Proof of the findings by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a now a factor of daily life. Due to intense heat waves and drought, 107 wildfires – including the largest ever in California – are now raging across the West, consuming 2.3 million acres. Earlier this summer, hundreds of people died in unprecedented triple-digit heat in Oregon, Washington and western Canada, when a "heat dome" of enormous proportions settled over the region for days. Some victims brought by stretcher into crowded hospital wards had body temperatures so high, their nervous systems had shut down. People collapsed trying to make their way to cooling shelters. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases Scientists say the event was almost certainly made worse and more intransigent by human-caused climate change. They attribute it to a combination of warming Arctic temperatures and a growing accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The consequences of what mankind has done to the atmosphere are now inescapable. Periods of extreme heat are projected to double in the lower 48 states by 2100. Heat deaths are far outpacing every other form of weather killer in a 30-year average. A persistent megadrought in America's West continues to create tinder-dry conditions that augur another devastating wildfire season. And scientists say warming oceans are fueling ever more powerful storms, evidenced by Elsa and the early arrival of hurricane season this year. Increasingly severe weather is causing an estimated $100 billion in damage to the United States every year. "It is honestly surreal to see your projections manifesting themselves in real time, with all the suffering that accompanies them. It is heartbreaking," said climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Rising seas from global warming Investigators are still trying to determine what led to the collapse of a Miami-area condominium that left more than 100 dead or missing. But one concerning factor is the corrosive effect on reinforced steel structures of encroaching saltwater, made worse in Florida by a foot of rising seas from global warming since the 1900s. The clock is ticking for planet Earth. While the U.N. report concludes some level of severe climate change is now unavoidable, there is still a window of time when far more catastrophic events can be mitigated. But mankind must act soon to curb the release of heat-trapping gases. Global temperature has risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era of the late 19th century. Scientists warn that in a decade, it could surpass a 2.7-degree increase. That's enough warming to cause catastrophic climate changes. After a brief decline in global greenhouse gas emissions during the pandemic, pollution is on the rise. Years that could have been devoted to addressing the crisis were wasted during a feckless period of inaction by the Trump administration. Congress must act Joe Biden won the presidency promising broad new policies to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions. But Congress needs to act on those ideas this year. Democrats cannot risk losing narrow control of one or both chambers of Congress in the 2022 elections to a Republican Party too long resistant to meaningful action on the climate. So what's at issue? A trillion dollar infrastructure bill negotiated between Biden and a group of centrist senators (including 10 Republicans) is a start. In addition to repairing bridges, roads and rails, it would improve access by the nation's power infrastructure to renewable energy sources, cap millions of abandoned oil and gas wells spewing greenhouse gases, and harden structures against climate change. It also offers tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and funds the construction of charging stations. (The nation's largest source of climate pollution are gas-powered vehicles.) Senate approval could come very soon. Much more is needed if the nation is going to reach Biden's necessary goal of cutting U.S. climate pollution in half from 2005 levels by 2030. His ideas worth considering include a federal clean electricity standard for utilities, federal investments and tax credits to promote renewable energy, and tens of billions of dollars in clean energy research and development, including into ways of extracting greenhouse gases from the skies. Another idea worth considering is a fully refundable carbon tax. The vehicle for these additional proposals would be a second infrastructure bill. And if Republicans balk at the cost of such vital investment, Biden is rightly proposing to pass this package through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows bills to clear the Senate with a simple majority vote. These are drastic legislative steps. But drastic times call for them. And when Biden attends a U.N. climate conference in November, he can use American progress on climate change as a mean of persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option. Climate change destroys the world – we’ll concede 1AC Specktor
9/25/21
SeptOct - DA - WTO Collapse
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 3 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Rafael Sanchez WTO Credibility is on the brink – patent waivers are the make-it-or-break it issue – failure to pass the Plan dooms the WTO BUT passage signals success that generate momentum for structural change. Meyer 6-18 David Meyer 6-18-2021 "The WTO's survival hinges on the COVID-19 vaccine patent debate, waiver advocates warn" https://archive.is/etPtf (Senior Writer at Fortune Magazine; Covers mostly European Business Affairs)Elmer The World Trade Organization knows all about crises. Former U.S. President Donald Trump threw a wrench into its core function of resolving trade disputes—a blocker that President Joe Biden has not yet removed—and there is widespread dissatisfaction over the fairness of the global trade rulebook. The 164-country organization, under the fresh leadership of Nigeria's Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has a lot to fix. However, one crisis is more pressing than the others: the battle over COVID-19 vaccines, and whether the protection of their patents and other intellectual property should be temporarily lifted to boost production and end the pandemic sooner rather than later. According to some of those pushing for the waiver—which was originally proposed last year by India and South Africa—the WTO's future rests on what happens next. "The credibility of the WTO will depend on its ability to find a meaningful outcome on this issue that truly ramps-up and diversifies production," says Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter, South Africa's ambassador to the WTO. "Final nail in the coffin" The Geneva-based WTO isn't an organization with power, as such—it's a framework within which countries make big decisions about trade, generally by consensus. It's supposed to be the forum where disputes get settled, because all its members have signed up to the same rules. And one of its most important rulebooks is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, which sprang to life alongside the WTO in 1995. The WTO's founding agreement allows for rules to be waived in exceptional circumstances, and indeed this has happened before: its members agreed in 2003 to waive TRIPS obligations that were blocking the importation of cheap, generic drugs into developing countries that lack manufacturing capacity. (That waiver was effectively made permanent in 2017.) Consensus is the key here. Although the failure to reach consensus on a waiver could be overcome with a 75 supermajority vote by the WTO's membership, this would be an unprecedented and seismic event. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine IP waiver, it would mean standing up to the European Union, and Germany in particular, as well as countries such as Canada and the U.K.—the U.S. recently flipped from opposing the idea of a waiver to supporting it, as did France. It's a dispute between countries, but the result will be on the WTO as a whole, say waiver advocates. "If, in the face of one of humanity's greatest challenges in a century, the WTO functionally becomes an obstacle as in contrast to part of the solution, I think it could be the final nail in the coffin" for the organization, says Lori Wallach, the founder of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a U.S. campaigning group that focuses on the WTO and trade agreements. "If the TRIPS waiver is successful, and people see the WTO as being part of the solution—saving lives and livelihoods—it could create goodwill and momentum to address what are still daunting structural problems." Yes Link – the Plan is perceptively seen as bolstering the WTO since its by all WTO Members. WTO collapse solves extinction Hilary 15 John Hilary 2015 “Want to know how to really tackle climate change? Pull the plug on the World Trade Organisation” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/want-to-know-how-to-really-tackle-climate-change-pull-the-plug-on-the-world-trade-organisation-a6774391.html (Executive Director, War on Want)Elmer Yet this grandiose plan soon fell victim to its own ambition. The WTO’s first summit after the launch of the Doha Round collapsed in acrimonious failure. The next was marked by pitched battles in the streets of Hong Kong as riot police fought Asian farmers desperately trying to save their livelihoods from the WTO’s free trade agenda. The WTO slipped into a coma. Government ministers must decide this week whether to turn off its life support. The answer is surely yes. It was the WTO’s poisonous cocktail of trade expansion and market deregulation that led to the economic crisis of 2008. Years of export-led growth resulted in a crisis of overproduction that could only be sustained with mountains of debt. The parallel deregulation of financial services meant that this debt soon turned out to be toxic, and the world’s banking system went into freefall. Nor is the WTO fit for purpose on ecological grounds. If last week’s climate talks in Paris taught us anything, it is that we must rethink the model of ever-expanding production and consumption in order to avoid planetary meltdown. Global capitalism may need limitless expansion in order to survive, but the planet is already at the very limits of what it can take. The choice is ours. Worst of all, it is the WTO’s ideology of unrestricted trade and corporate domination that lies behind all the bilateral trade deals that are proliferating at the moment, including the infamous Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). We need a radically different model of regulated trade and controlled investment if we are to have any chance of breaking the cycle of economic and ecological crisis. For the planet to survive, the WTO must die. The WTO ensures structural poverty of the Global South – multiple warrants. Walker 11 Aurelie Walker 11-14-2011 "The WTO has failed developing nations" https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/nov/14/wto-fails-developing-countries (trade policy advisor at the Fairtrade Foundation. Aurelie has specialised in EU trade relations with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. She has worked as trade negotiator for an East African government, as advisor to business and government in Southern Africa on the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations and for European Institutions and think tanks. Aurelie now advocates on behalf on Fairtrade producers on international trade issues)Elmer Ten years ago, a new World Trade Organisation that put developing country needs at the centre of the international trade negotiation agenda was proposed. The Ministerial Declaration adopted at the start of the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations, on 14 November 2001, was a promising response to the anti-globalisation riots of the 1990s. But the WTO membership has failed to deliver the promised pro-development changes. Finding "development" in the Doha Development Round today is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Developing countries have been completely sidelined by the economic and political interests of global powers. Here are 10 examples of how the WTO has failed the poor: 1. Cotton: the Fairtrade Foundation revealed last year how the $47bn in subsidies paid to rich-country producers in the past 10 years has created barriers for the 15 million cotton farmers across west Africa trying to trade their way out of poverty, and how 5 million of the world's poorest farming families have been forced out of business and into deeper poverty because of those subsidies. 2. Agricultural subsidies: beyond cotton, WTO members have failed even to agree how to reduce the huge subsidies paid to rich world farmers, whose overproduction continues to threaten the livelihoods of developing world farmers. 3. Trade agreements: the WTO has also failed to clarify the deliberately ambiguous rules on concluding trade agreements that allow the poorest countries to be manipulated by the rich states. In Africa, in negotiations with the EU, countries have been forced to eliminate tariffs on up to 90 of their trade because no clear rules exist to protect them. 4. Special treatment: the rules for developing countries, called "special and differential treatment" rules, were meant to be reviewed to make them more precise, effective and operational. But the WTO has failed to work through the 88 proposals that would fill the legal vacuum. 5. Medicine: the poorest in developing countries are unable to access affordable medicine because members have failed to clarify ambiguities between the need for governments to protect public health on one hand and on the other to protect the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. 6. Legal costs: the WTO pledged to improve access to its expensive and complex legal system, but has failed. In 15 years of dispute settlement under the WTO, 400 cases have been initiated. No African country has acted as a complainant and only one least developed country has ever filed a claim. 7. Protectionist economic policies: one of the WTO's five core functions agreed at its inception in 1995 was to achieve more coherence in global economic policy-making. Yet the WTO failed to curb the speedy increase in the number of protectionist measures applied by G20 countries in response to the global economic crisis over the past two years – despite G20 leaders' repeated affirmations of their "unwavering" commitment to resist all forms of protectionist measures. 8. Natural disaster: the WTO fails to alleviate suffering when it has the opportunity to do so. In the case of natural disaster, the membership will have taken almost two years to agree and implement temporary trade concessions for Pakistan, where severe flooding displaced 20 million people in 2010 and caused $10bn of damage. Those measures, according to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, would have boosted Pakistan's exports to the EU by at least €100m this year. 9. Decision-making: the WTO makes most of its decisions by consensus – and achieving consensus between 153 countries is nearly impossible. But this shows another failure of the WTO: to break the link between market size and political weight that would give small and poor countries a voice in the trade negotiations. 10. Fair trade: 10 years after the start of the Doha Development Round, governments have failed to make trade fair. As long as small and poor countries remain without a voice, the role of campaigning organisations, such as Traidcraft and Fairtrade Foundation, which are working together to eliminate cotton subsidies, will remain critical. The WTO has failed to live up to its promises over the past decade, which reveals a wider systemic problem in the global community. True and lasting solutions to global economic problems can only come when the model of global competitiveness between countries becomes one of genuine cooperation. The 1AC evidence isolates that each of the problems they mention aren’t solely caused by IP, but rather expressions of the overarching system of capitalism – thus collapsing the whole system is key.
10/30/21
SeptOct - K - SetCol
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AA | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy Genocidal settlement is a structure, not an event meaning ontological logic of elimination is an everyday manifestation that defines settler identity. Rifkin 14, Mark. Settler common sense: Queerness and everyday colonialism in the American renaissance. U of Minnesota Press, 2014. (Associate Professor of English and WGS at UNC-Greensboro)Elmer If nineteenth-century American literary studies tends to focus on the ways Indians enter the narrative frame and the kinds of meanings and associa- tions they bear, recent attempts to theorize settler colonialism have sought to shift attention from its effects on Indigenous subjects to its implications for nonnative political attachments, forms of inhabitance, and modes of being, illuminating and tracking the pervasive operation of settlement as a system. In Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology, Patrick Wolfe argues, “Settler colonies were (are) premised on the elimination of native societies. The split tensing reflects a determinate feature of settler colonization. The colonizers come to stay—invasion is a structure not an event” (2).6 He suggests that a “logic of elimination” drives settler governance and sociality, describing “the settler-colonial will” as “a historical force that ultimately derives from the primal drive to expansion that is generally glossed as capitalism” (167), and in “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” he observes that “elimination is an organizing principle of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and superceded) occurrence” (388). Rather than being superseded after an initial moment/ period of conquest, colonization persists since “the logic of elimination marks a return whereby the native repressed continues to structure settler- colonial society” (390). In Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s work, whiteness func- tions as the central way of understanding the domination and displacement of Indigenous peoples by nonnatives.7 In “Writing Off Indigenous Sover- eignty,” she argues, “As a regime of power, patriarchal white sovereignty operates ideologically, materially and discursively to reproduce and main- tain its investment in the nation as a white possession” (88), and in “Writ- ing Off Treaties,” she suggests, “At an ontological level the structure of subjective possession occurs through the imposition of one’s will-to-be on the thing which is perceived to lack will, thus it is open to being possessed,” such that “possession . . . forms part of the ontological structure of white subjectivity” (83–84). For Jodi Byrd, the deployment of Indianness as a mobile figure works as the principal mode of U.S. settler colonialism. She observes that “colonization and racialization . . . have often been conflated,” in ways that “tend to be sited along the axis of inclusion/exclusion” and that “misdirect and cloud attention from the underlying structures of settler colonialism” (xxiii, xvii). She argues that settlement works through the translation of indigeneity as Indianness, casting place-based political collec- tivities as (racialized) populations subject to U.S. jurisdiction and manage- ment: “the Indian is left nowhere and everywhere within the ontological premises through which U.S. empire orients, imagines, and critiques itself ”; “ideas of Indians and Indianness have served as the ontological ground through which U.S. settler colonialism enacts itself ” (xix). That results in land exploitation and ecocide – specifically manifests in knowledge institutions making forefronting Settler Colonialism a prior question. Paperson 17 la paperson or K. Wayne Yang, June 2017, “A Third University is Possible” (an associate professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, San Diego)Elmer Land is the prime concern of settler colonialism, contexts in which the colonizer comes to a “new” place not only to seize and exploit but to stay, making that “new” place his permanent home. Settler colonialism thus complicates the center–periphery model that was classically used to describe colonialism, wherein an imperial center, the “metropole,” dominates distant colonies, the “periphery.” Typically, one thinks of European colonization of Africa, India, the Caribbean, the Pacific Islands, in terms of external colonialism, also called exploitation colonialism, where land and human beings are recast as natural resources for primitive accumulation: coltan, petroleum, diamonds, water, salt, seeds, genetic material, chattel. Theories named as “settler colonial studies” had a resurgence beginning around 2006.2 However, the analysis of settler colonialism is actually not new, only often ignored within Western critiques of empire.3 The critical literatures of the colonized have long positioned the violence of settlement as a prime feature in colonial life as well as in global arrangements of power. We can see this in Franz Fanon’s foundational critiques of colonialism. Whereas Fanon’s work is often generalized for its diagnoses of anti/colonial violence and the racialized psychoses of colonization upon colonized and colonizer, Fanon is also talking about settlement as the particular feature of French colonization in Algeria. For Fanon, the violence of French colonization in Algeria arises from settlement as a spatial immediacy of empire: the geospatial collapse of metropole and colony into the same time and place. On the “selfsame land” are spatialized white immunity and racialized violation, non-Native desires for freedom, Black life, and Indigenous relations.4 Settler colonialism is too often thought of as “what happened” to Indigenous people. This kind of thinking confines the experiences of Indigenous people, their critiques of settler colonialism, their decolonial imaginations, to an unwarranted historicizing parochialism, as if settler colonialism were a past event that “happened to” Native peoples and not generalizable to non-Natives. Actually, settler colonialism is something that “happened for” settlers. Indeed, it is happening for them/us right now. Wa Thiong’o’s question of how instead of why directs us to think of land tenancy laws, debt, and the privatization of land as settler colonial technologies that enable the “eventful” history of plunder and disappearance. Property law is a settler colonial technology. The weapons that enforce it, the knowledge institutions that legitimize it, the financial institutions that operationalize it, are also technologies. Like all technologies, they evolve and spread. Recasting land as property means severing Indigenous peoples from land. This separation, what Hortense Spillers describes as “the loss of Indigenous name/land” for Africans-turned-chattel, recasts Black Indigenous people as black bodies for biopolitical disposal: who will be moved where, who will be murdered how, who will be machinery for what, and who will be made property for whom.5 In the alienation of land from life, alienable rights are produced: the right to own (property), the right to law (protection through legitimated violence), the right to govern (supremacist sovereignty), the right to have rights (humanity). In a word, what is produced is whiteness. Moreover, it is not just human beings who are refigured in the schism. Land and nonhumans become alienable properties, a move that first alienates land from its own sovereign life. Thus we can speak of the various technologies required to create and maintain these separations, these alienations: Black from Indigenous, human from nonhuman, land from life.6 “How?” is a question you ask if you are concerned with the mechanisms, not just the motives, of colonization. Instead of settler colonialism as an ideology, or as a history, you might consider settler colonialism as a set of technologies —a frame that could help you to forecast colonial next operations and to plot decolonial directions. This chapter proceeds with the following insights. (1) The settler–native– slave triad does not describe identities. The triad—an analytic mainstay of settler colonial studies—digs a pitfall of identity that not only chills collaborations but also implies that the racial will be the solution. (2) Technologies are trafficked. Technologies generate patterns of social relations to land. Technologies mutate, and so do these relationships. Colonial technologies travel. In tracing technologies’ past and future trajectories, we can connect how settler colonial and antiblack technologies circulate in transnational arenas. (3) Land—not just people—is the biopolitical target.7 The examples are many: fracking, biopiracy, damming of rivers and flooding of valleys, the carcasses of pigs that die from the feed additive ractopamine and are allowable for harvest by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The subjugation of land and nonhuman life to deathlike states in order to support “human” life is a “biopolitics” well beyond the Foucauldian conception of biopolitical as governmentality or the neoliberal disciplining of modern, bourgeois, “human” subject. (4) (Y)our task is to theorize in the break, that is, to refuse the master narrative that technology is loyal to the master, that our theory has a Eurocentric origin. Black studies, Indigenous studies, and Othered studies have already made their breaks with Foucault (over biopolitics), with Deleuze and Guatarri (over assemblages and machines), and with Marx (over life and primitive accumulation). (5) Even when they are dangerous, understanding technologies provides us some pathways for decolonizing work. We can identify projects of collaboration on decolonial technologies. Colonizing mechanisms are evolving into new forms, and they might be subverted toward decolonizing operations. The Settler–Native–Slave Triad Does Not Describe Identities One of the main interventions of settler colonial studies has been to insist that the patterning of social relations is shaped by colonialism’s thirst for land and thus is shaped to fit modes of empire. Because colonialism is a perverted affair, our relationships are also warped into complicitous arrangements of violation, trespass, and collusion with its mechanisms. For Fanon, the psychosis of colonialism arises from the patterning of violence into the binary relationship between the immune humanity of the white settler and the impugned humanity of the native. For Fanon, the supremacist “right” to create settler space that is immune from violence, and the “right” to abuse the body of the Native to maintain white immunity, this is the spatial and fleshy immediacy of settler colonialism. Furthermore, the “humanity” of the settler is constructed upon his agency over the land and nature. As Maldonado- Torres explains, “I think, therefore I am” is actually an articulation of “I conquer, therefore I am,” a sense of identity posited upon the harnessing of nature and its “natural” people.8 This creates a host of post+colonial problems that have come to define modernity. Because the humanity of the settler is predicated on his ability to “write the world,” to make history upon and over the natural world, the colonized is instructed to make her claim to humanity by similarly acting on the world or, more precisely, acting in his. Indeed, for Fanon, it is the perverse ontology of settler becomings—becoming landowner or becoming property, becoming killable or becoming a killer—and the mutual implication of tortured and torturer that mark the psychosis of colonialism. This problem of modernity and colonial psychosis is echoed in Jack Forbes’s writings: Columbus was a wétiko. He was mentally ill or insane, the carrier of a terribly contagious psychological disease, the wétiko psychosis. . . . The wétiko psychosis, and the problems it creates, have inspired many resistance movements and efforts at reform or revolution. Unfortunately, most of these efforts have failed because they have never diagnosed the wétiko.9 Under Western modernity, becoming “free” means becoming a colonizer, and because of this, “the central contradiction of modernity is freedom.”10 Critiques of settler colonialism, therefore, do not offer just another “type” of colonialism to add to the literature but a mode of analysis that has repercussions for any diagnosis of coloniality and for understanding the modern conditions of freedom. By modern conditions of freedom, I mean that Western freedom is a product of colonial modernity, and I mean that such freedom comes with conditions, with strings attached, most manifest as terms of unfreedom for nonhumans. As Cindi Mayweather says, “your freedom’s in a bind.”11 Expansion of medical access is a form of settler colonial biomedical onslaught – humanitarian promotions of health proliferate genocidal assimilation. Klausen 13, Jimmy Casas. "Reservations on hospitality: contact and vulnerability in Kant and indigenous action." Hospitality and World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013. 197-221. (Associate Professor in the Instituto de Relações Internacionais at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro)Elmer On the other hand and by contrast, the governmental reach of public health initiatives that would effect the improvement of isolated indigenous populations’ health accords with Kantian philanthropy – with all the risks of violated freedom and smothered life that entails. Public health advocates would repair the disadvantaged morbidity profile of isolated indigenous groups through a policy of initiating contact supported by the provision of modern biomedical health care services to ameliorate the epidemiological effects of contact. State-initiated contact without attendant health care has proved disastrous. Into the 1970s, FUNAI attempted to make friendly contact with isolated Indians. By relying on hired expert indigenous trackers, government contact expeditions located isolated groups and – demonstrating their interest in seeking commerce – enticed the latter with gifts of machetes and blankets. One FUNAI expedition to contact the Matis in 1978 resulted in high morbidity from pneumonia and other infectious diseases and killed one of every two Matis. 60 To correct such devastating policies, anthropologists Magdalena Hurtado, Kim Hill, Hillard Kaplan and Jane Lancaster have elaborated the following argument: Many anthropologists and indigenous-rights activists believe that uncontacted Indians should be left alone. These people are well-meaning, but they are wrong because they base their position on three incorrect assumptions. First, they assume that the Indians have chosen to remain isolated . . . . Those who oppose contact also assume that the Indians will inevitably be decimated by virgin-soil epidemics . . . . Finally, opponents of contact assume that isolated native groups will survive if not contacted. 61 However, even correcting for the fatal infelicities of past policy-driven, state-initiated contacts such as FUNAI’s, the preponderantly disadvantaged morbidity profile of such virgin-soil populations cannot be reduced by greater hospitality in the form of redoubled and more expert interventionary contacts. Although public health efforts like those advocated by Hurtado et al. might reduce mortality, highly disease-vulnerable persons will still sicken and will do so through means that would pretend to foster life by actively disregarding how the people subject to these external machinations might determine their own needs and value their own health. Isolated indigenes’ biological lives would be simultaneously fostered and risked, while their free personhood would count as nothing morally–culturally. In short, there are serious political costs to be weighed in such an intervention. Because of – and not in spite of – their philanthropy, public health interventions of the type that Hurtado et al. advocate extend the reach of governmentality much more intrusively than land rights policies. Besides deciding on behalf of peoples in regard to the interpretation of their acts of self-quarantine, the advocated public health policies surgically insert apparatuses of biomedicine directly into the contacted peoples’ living being. Such policies thereby displace indigenous norms of health and native cultural strategies of living on with the norms and overall strategy embedded in the culture of scientific and clinical biomedicine. Though the pretence is that such acts demonstrate the hospitality of the wider national or global society, such health policy interventions cannot simply make a presentation for possible society; rather, qua philanthropy they initiate contact, which, because of the high degree of vulnerability of those contacted, must needs lead to the proliferation of contacts. It is not a hospitable policy of fostering life that Hurtado et al. support, not merely possible commerce but an obsessive philanthropy of biomedical life support and literally unavoidable onslaught of commerce, possibly forevermore. Most startlingly, such public health interventions presume as universal a standard of life that could certainly vary while retaining meaning and value. The anthropologist Tess Lea describes this universalising interventionary compulsion in withering words: When you are a helping bureau-professional, the compulsion to do something to fix the problems of target populations – those deemed as suffering from unequal and preventable conditions – exceeds all other impulses . . . . ‘They’ need our greater commitment. The idea that life might be lived differently with value and meaning or that ‘need’ might be conceived differently from the way in which we calculate it through our interventionary lens, becomes impossible to imagine. 62 Hurtado et al. assume that health professionals and policy makers must hospitably confer biomedically acquired immunity on heretofore isolated and now contacted virgin soil populations. Fostering indigenous lives by imposing an alien conception of immunity, they would inhospitably destroy alternate strategies of living on. Seeing through their interventionary lens, Hurtado et al. themselves become arbiters of successful and unsuccessful forms of life: they presume that self-quarantine cannot itself serve as an effective cultural strategy to immunise living bodies. Thus, ironically perhaps, these anthropologists choose biology above culture by seeing each from a standpoint authorised by the culture of biomedicine. From their interventionary lens and against Canguilhem’s admonition above, self-quarantine appears to be a failed strategy for living on because the immunity it would confer is imperfect or incomplete. Likewise, condoning self-isolation is imperfect or incomplete hospitality as against their more perfect interventionary hospitality in the name of life. Authorising themselves to make these judgements, they enact an altogether different collapse of morality into nature than the Kantian collapse I reconstruct above. Whereas Kant’s collapse of minimalism into abstentionism and moral duty into nature’s constraints opens hospitality and therefore strategies for living on, this other collapse binds moralising conceptions of ‘health’ to the biomedically conceived body. Yet if, according to Canguilhem, for humans especially, ‘health is precisely a certain latitude, a certain play in the norms of life and behavior’, 63 then it seems that the ‘health’ that supposedly hospitable, though strictly philanthropic, ‘life’-fostering interventionary contact would impose on the exuberance of self-quarantining indigenous peoples is a sickness unto that other perpetual peace Kant mentions: death. Biomedicine itself is invested in colonial exploitation through testing done on indigenous communities to biopiracy and stealing indigenous knowledge. Lift Mode 17 3-10-2017 "Pharmaceutical Colonialism” https://medium.com/@liftmode/pharmaceutical-colonialism-3-ways-that-western-medicine-takes-from-indigenous-communities-3a9339b4f24f (We at Liftmode.com are a team of professionals from a variety of backgrounds, dedicated to the mission of providing the highest quality and highest purity nutritional health supplements on the market. We look specifically for the latest and most promising research in the fields of cognition enhancement, neuroscience and alternative health supplements, and develop commercial strategies to bring these technologies to the marketplace.)Elmer Does modern medicine take from rural communities? At first, this seems outrageous. However, on closer inspection, we find three main methods of poaching: stealing indigenous knowledge, ‘biopiracy’, and the sale of pharmaceuticals at exorbitant prices. Another example includes using developing countries and rural populations as test subjects in unethical clinical trials — for example on AIDS patients in South Africa.1 This article examines three methods that Western medicine takes from rural communities. We also examine the emerging new forms of medicine and how many people are beginning to appreciate the medical knowledge of different cultures around the world. Traditional knowledge and culture is threatened by the expansive natural of the pharmaceutical industry 1. Pharmaceutical colonialism: Stealing Indigenous Knowledge First and foremost, what has been taken from indigenous communities for the last roughly 600 years is traditional knowledge about medicinal plants. It is interesting that the major advancements in Western medicine coincide very closely to escalating global colonialism by Western countries. It’s difficult to estimate the exact percentage of modern drugs that were originally based on traditional plant sources, because of the complex evolution of Western laboratory-made medicine. However, this percentage is known to be very high. In fact, a 2006 paper by Dr. A Gurib-Fakim states: “Natural products and their derivatives represent more than 50 of all the drugs in clinical use in the world. Higher plants contribute no less than 25 of the total.”2 The extent to which traditional knowledge permeates through Western medicine is too broad to explain fully in a small article like this. We’d need to write an entire book to cover the full content! So, we will just take a look at one example below. How the West takes Indigenous knowledge: Anti-Malaria Drugs Mosquitoes are, by far, the world’s most dangerous animals, spreading a number of diseases including Dengue fever, Zika virus, and malaria. According to the World Health Organization, nearly half of the world’s population is at risk of malaria. In 2015, over 210 million people became infected with malaria, and a staggering 429 000 people died from the blood parasite.3 To combat the infectious disease, scientists have developed two major classes of anti-malarial drugs. These are both based on indigenous knowledge of plant medicine: Mosquitos kill more people than any other animal every year 1. Quinine Quinine is extracted from the bark of the cinchona tree, native to South America. Contrary to propaganda by the Spanish inquisitors, which is still used in modern medicine today, Westerners did not ‘discover’ the cinchona tree. Indigenous Peruvian cultures had been using the bark of the cinchona tree for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years before the arrival of the colonial forces from the North. They crushed it up and mixed it with water to ‘relieve shivering’ — a major sign of the feverish symptoms of malaria.4 Unlike traditional Chinese knowledge, which has survived until modern times, the ancient knowledge of South America cultures was almost completely destroyed by colonial forces. This makes tracing the historical use of the cinchona tree more difficult.5 After the inquisition of most traditional cultures in South America, the cinchona bark was brought back to Western Europe and was hailed as one of the most exciting discoveries of modern medicine. The success of cinchona bark in Europe created a massive industry, initially run by the Spanish, but which was later overtaken by French and English industrialists.6 It’s important to know that the ‘traditional’ use of cinchona bark in 18th century Europe was in exactly the same method as its original use in indigenous societies: crushing up the barking and mixing it with water. The chemical compound quinine was first extracted from cinchona bark in 1820 by two Frenchmen: Pierre Joseph Pelletier and Joseph Caventou. This allowed purified quinine to replace traditional cinchona extracts.7 Interestingly, Western scientists have since discovered that cinchona bark actually contains several active components, which function in a synergistic relationship to kill the malaria parasite.8 In modern times, a number of quinine-based drugs have been developed, with varying success. The issue becomes complex here because, while these drugs were developed by Western scientists using modern technological laboratories, if it hadn’t been for the original indigenous knowledge, these compounds could not have been developed at all. The quinine derivatives include Chloroquine, Pyrimethamine, and Mefloquine. Chloroquine was used as a spray along with DDT in the WHO’s malaria eradication plan (the efficacy and usefulness of this are still under debate: numerous countries that were sprayed with these chemicals soon developed strains of malaria that were resistant to the drugs).9 60411828 - workers are fogging for dengue control. mosquito borne diseases of zika virus. Quinine-based drugs were used in sprays to combat malaria around the world 2. Artemisinin Artemisinin is an active compound found in traditional Chinese medicine called Qinghao Su (sweet wormwood). This traditional Chinese medicine has been used to treat fevers for over a thousand years. It is currently still extracted from plant sources, the majority of which are grown in China, Vietnam and East Africa. Once the full-grown plants are harvested, the chemical is extracted, leaving the pure artemisinin at a highly variable market price of between $120 — $1200 per kilogram.10 It’s interesting that the artemisinin-based drug combinations (ACTs) are the most expensive anti-malarial treatments available. This is despite the fact that it is one of the few malarial medications that are still mostly plant-based. However, Western pharmaceutical companies are now developing synthetic forms of artemisinin. The new forms of artemsinin are genetically engineered and have intellectual property rights attached, potentially bringing in big revenues for the companies involved. The proponents of the synthetic form of artemisinin claim that the synthetic form will be able to be sold for cheaper than the natural form. However, the average import price of natural artemsisin to India over the last ten years was around $370 per kilo — a fair amount cheaper than the price that the pharmaceutical companies are pushing for.11 Artemisinin farming sustains the livelihoods of an estimated 100’000 farmers. With synthetic derivatives being developed this puts the livelihoods of the farmers and their families at risk of poverty (estimated to be around 3–5 times the number of people as the farmers themselves).12 The ironic and disturbing thing about the whole situation is that the artemisinin farmers themselves are the ones who are most at risk of contracting malaria. In effect, they stand to not only have their incomes stripped by Western pharmaceutical companies but also to become physically dependent on the products of those very companies. 13 16118463 - portrait of a burmese woman with thanaka powdered face working in farm Farmers livelihoods are threatened by the use of synthetic chemicals 2. ‘Biopiracy’ — stealing natural resources and plants The idea that modern medicine might be a form of colonialism seems at first to be quite outrageous! However, on closer inspection, it’s quite clear that a few nations continue to play the role of ‘missionary’, helping to save people in the ‘developing world’.14 In some cases, though, the role of the ‘missionary’ becomes a little less clear. The second way that Western medicine takes from indigenous communities is something called ‘Biopiracy’. This is similar to the method we described above, however, in this case, what is taken is not knowledge but the actual plants and resources themselves. In biopiracy actions, plants and natural resources are stolen entirely from indigenous communities and are then used to develop drugs and medicines in the West. The indigenous communities benefit nothing from the theft of their resources. Medicines developed from stolen materials are often sold back to the very people from whom the original plant-sources were stolen — at exorbitant prices. Examples of medications that face biopiracy charges include: A drug for diabetes developed in the UK from a Libyan plant, Artemisia judaica A medicine for immunosuppression developed by GlaxoSmithKline which is derived from a chemical found in termite hills in Gambia An HIV treatment taken from bacteria found in central Uganda Antibiotic drugs developed from amoebas found in Mauritius and Venezuela Anti-diarrhea vaccines developed from Egyptian bacteria 15 According to Beth Burrows, president of Washington-based Edmond’s Institute: “Times have changed. It is no longer acceptable for the great white explorer to trawl across Africa or South America taking what they want for their own commercial benefit. It is no more than a new form of colonial pillaging. As there are internationally recognized rights for oil, so there should be for indigenous plants and knowledge.”16 In an ideal world, knowledge and resources would be shared equitably. Both the indigenous cultures and the modern world would benefit from the sharing of knowledge and medicinal plants, which could leave the world a much better place. However, this is not the case in today’s world. More and more, we see evidence of pharmaceutical companies using rural communities as customers and guinea-pigs for medicine that was originally sourced from local knowledge.17 Traditional medicine is pushed off the market and indigenous knowledge is ‘dumbed down’ through development programs. This forces the majority of the world to have to work through cartel-like pharmaceutical corporations who extract unbelievably large sums of money from people, which we’ll look at below.18 21736635 - shanty house in bangkok water canals along the river bank, thailand Those who benefit the least from pharmaceutical colonialism are the ones who need healthcare the most Vote negative to endorse a cartography of refusal Day 15 Iyko, Associate Professor of English. Chair, Critical Social Thought. “Being or Nothingness: Indigeneity, Antiblackness, and Settler Colonial Critique.” Source: Critical Ethnic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2015), pp. 102-121 Elmer And so the potential relations that Wilderson sets up through a critique of sovereignty are at best irrelevant or at worse false in Sexton’s absolute claim that slavery stands alone as the “threshold of the political world.”45 I suggest that this wavering relation/nonrelation of antiblackness and Indigeneity exhibited in Wilderson’s and Sexton’s work reveal the problem in any totalizing approach to the heterogeneous constitution of racial difference in settler colonies. Beyond this inconsistency, the liberal multiculturalist agenda that Wilderson and Sexton project into Indigenous sovereignty willfully evacuates any Indigenous refusal of a colonial politics of recognition. Among other broad strokes, Sexton states, “as a rule, Native Studies reproduces the dominant liberal political narrative of emancipation and enfranchisement.”46 This provides a basis for Wilderson’s assertion that Indigenous sovereignty engages in a liberal politics of state legitimation through recognition because “treaties are forms of articulation” that buttress “the interlocutory life of America as a coherent (albeit genocidal) idea.”47 But such a depoliticized liberal project is frankly incompatible with Indigenous activism and scholarship that emerges from Native studies in North America. The main argument in Glen Sean Coulthard’s book Red Skin, White Masks is to categorically reject “the liberal recognition-based approach to Indigenous selfdetermination.”48 This is not a politics of legitimizing Indigenous nations through state recognition but rather one of refusal, a refusal to be recognized and thus interpellated by the settler colonial nation-state. Drawing on Fanon, Coulthard describes the “necessity on the part of the oppressed to ‘turn away’ from their other-oriented master-dependency, and to instead struggle for freedom on their own terms and in accordance with their own values.”49 It is also difficult to reconcile the depoliticized narrative of “resurgence and recovery” that Wilderson and Sexton attribute to Indigenous sovereignty in the face of Idle No More, the anticapitalist Indigenous sovereignty movement in Canada whose national railway and highway blockades have seriously destabilized the expropriation of natural resources for the global market. These are examples that Coulthard describes as “direct action” rather tjhan negotiation—in other words, antagonism, not conflict resolution: The blockades are a crucial act of negation insofar as they seek to impede or block the flow of resources currently being transported to international markets from oil and gas fields, refineries, lumber mills, mining operations, and hydroelectric facilities located on the dispossessed lands of Indigenous nations. These modes of direct action . . . seek to have a negative impact on the economic infrastructure that is core to the colonial accumulation of capital in settler-political economies like Canada’s.50 These tactics are part of what Audra Simpson calls a “cartography of refusal” that “negates the authority of the other’s gaze.”51 It is impossible to frame the blockade movement, which has become the greatest threat to Canada’s resource agenda,52 as a struggle for “enfranchisement.” Idle No More is not in “conflict” with the Canadian nation-state; it is in a struggle against the very premise of settler colonial capitalism that requires the elimination of Indigenous peoples. As Coulthard states unambiguously, “For Indigenous nations to live, capitalism must die.”
9/18/21
SeptOct - T - Medicine
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Interlake DB | Judge: Jayanne Forrest Interpretation: Medicines effect disease Merriam Webster “Medicine” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine 1a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease cough medicine. Violation: Music doesn’t do that No I meet – They need to read specific evidence to overcome ideological preference
Vote neg for limits and ground – an unstable stasis point for contestation explodes the amount of Affs on this topic from 5 to anything that could arbitrarily be related to medicine. That moots all negative ground predicated on current domestic and international issues around intellectual property, and medicines for treatment. Topic disads like innovation, biotech, and even generics like Cap are mooted because the aff can always say “not our IPR” since no one says music = medicine.
TVA – Read an aff that reduces IP Protections for Medicines that indigenous tribes use. Allows for the thesis of the aff, while still centering the debate around a medicine which is the best middle ground.
Independently, they’re extra topical because they fiat ceding to indigenous tribes which includes both words and actions outside of the res. That’s a voting issue because it lets them tack on endless things to a “topical” plan which moots negative ground that is based on resolutional stasis.
Fairness is an impact – A It’s an intrinsic good – some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity – if it didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be value to the game since judges could literally vote whatever way they wanted regardless of the competing arguments made B Probability – your ballot can’t solve their impacts but it can solve mine – debate can’t alter subjectivity, but can rectify skews
Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.
9/11/21
SeptOct - T - Nebel
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Lindsey Williams 1 Interpretation: The Aff must defend an IP reduction for all medicines. 2Grammar – it’s a generic bare plural Nebel 19 Nebel, Jake. PhD candidate in philosophy at New York University, executive director at the Victory Briefs Institute for Debate, professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. “Existential Bare Plurals and Quantifier Scope.” Vbriefly. January 2, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/01/02/existential-bare-plurals-and-quantifier-scope-by-jake-nebel/?fbclid=IwAR3d1BVzSwoB1sq7PQR9dYE3_Ee-qAgD-phE2xJh6kAmrrgPOyabpO_Dxww TG Let’s start with some background. “Authoritarian regimes” is a bare plural: it’s a plural noun phrase without an explicit determiner (e.g., “five,” “some,” “all,” “the,” “most”). Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations, as in “Ravens are black.” Unlike universally quantified statements, generics tolerate exceptions. For example, “Ravens are black” is true even though “All ravens are black” is false. In addition to generic readings, bare plurals can also sometimes have existential readings, as if they were preceded by “some.” For example, “Ravens are outside” is true just in case there are some ravens—i.e., more than one—outside. Unlike existential statements, generic generalizations are not entailed by specific instances. For example, the generic “Ravens are white” is false even though some ravens are indeed white; white ravens are white not because they are ravens but because they have leucism. For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, and which apply straightforwardly to this topic, I think “authoritarian regimes” is a generic bare plural, not an existential one. My reasons include that it fails the upward-entailment test for existential bare plurals (the resolution doesn’t entail that the United States ought not provide military aid to governments, even though all authoritarian regimes are governments); (ii) that bare plurals denote kinds of things, not specific members of those kinds, and so get an existential reading only in very specific circumstances which don’t seem to obtain in this resolution; (iii) that generics are our default means of generalization, especially in moral contexts, so we should expect the resolution to be generic absent strong evidence to the contrary; and, most importantly, (iv) that we can simply tell that it’s generic by linguistic intuition, which is the primary source of data for linguistic theorizing. The generic interpretation implies that many affirmative advocacies—those that specify particular authoritarian regimes to which the United States ought not provide military aid, leaving open the possibility of providing aid to all other authoritarian regimes—do not affirm the resolution, because generic generalizations are not entailed by specific instances.1 To affirm the resolution, regime-specific affirmatives require an existential interpretation of “authoritarian regimes,” which is incorrect. In this article, however, I want to suppose for the sake of argument that the existential interpretation is correct, and argue that regime-specific affirmatives—even those that specify more than one regime—still violate the existential interpretation. In the course of laying out the argument, we’ll learn about an idea of crucial importance to both philosophy and linguistics—the concept of quantifier scope—and, rather than finish my dissertation, I’d like to introduce debaters to that idea. It applies to this topic – the resolution doesn’t entail that “states ought to reduce their protections on intellectual property” even though all medicines are intellectual property because states might want to keep protections for other IP which means it fails the upward-entailment test. 3 Violation – they only defend the plan text 4 Vote neg for limits and ground – they can defend anything from insulin to cancer to stem cells and gene editing which explodes neg prep – the core controversy is about medicinal IP policy, not specific medicines. Limits and ground are key to reciprocal engagement with the topic.
10/19/21
SeptOct - T - Reduce
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley AR | Judge: Austin Broussard 1 Interpretation - Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from “waive” or “suspend.” Reynolds 59 (Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. *13 The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Waiver is temporary. Green 5/6 Andrew Green (Devex Contributing Reporter based in Berlin, his coverage focuses primarily on health and human rights and he has previously worked as Voice of America's South Sudan bureau chief and the Center for Public Integrity's web editor). “US backs waiver for intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines”. Devex. 06 May 2021. Accessed 7/31/2021. https://www.devex.com/news/us-backs-waiver-for-intellectual-property-rights-for-covid-19-vaccines-99847Xu In a stunning reversal, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration came out in favor of waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines Wednesday. The move follows months of U.S. opposition that began under former President Donald Trump to a proposal from South Africa and India to temporarily set aside intellectual property rights around products that would protect, contain, and treat COVID-19. Its supporters have argued that the proposal, first tabled at the World Trade Organization in October and now backed by more than 100 countries, is necessary to expand vaccine production and overcome global shortages. 2 Violation – the plan waives the TRIPS agreement – CX proves 3 Vote neg for limits and neg ground – re-instatement under any infinite number of conditions doubles aff ground – every plan becomes either temporary or permanent – you cherry-pick the best criteria and I must prep every aff while they avoid core topic discussions like reduction-based DAs which decks generics like Pharma Innovation and Bio-Tech. 4 TVA solves – permanently reduce COVID patents. 5 Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.
9/19/21
SeptOct - T - WTO
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AA | Judge: Tarun Ratnasabapathy Interp – topical affs must fiat an action through the World Trade Organization. Member nations of the WTO make policies as a whole – WTO ND (World Trade Organization) “What is the WTO?” https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm BC The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who usually meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva). Nation and state are synonymous Merriam Webster ND “nation” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation BC Definition of nation (Entry 1 of 2) 1a(1): NATIONALITY sense 5athree Slav peoples … forged into a Yugoslavia without really fusing into a Yugoslav nation— Hans Kohn (2): a politically organized nationality (3)in the Bible : a non-Jewish nationality why do the nations conspire— Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version) b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government Canada is a nation with a written constitution— B. K. Sandwell c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status a nation of vast size with a small population— Mary K. Hammond
Violation – they don’t – EU member states are distinct from WTO member nations Prefer 1 Ground – justifies affs about any country reducing any IP protection on medicine – only our interp ensures link magnitude by ensuring it is an international reduction for IPP for medicine which is key to generics like the innovation DA, WTO bad, consult the WHO, and the IP NC -- privileges the aff by stretching pre-tournament neg prep too thin and precluding nuanced rigorous testing of aff. 2 Topic ed – WTO patent wavers are the core topic controversy – their aff is just domestic policy passed in European Union Member states. Proven by their second advantage – none of their internal links are about medical trade secrets which proves their interpretation is a cheap way of getting a relations impact about any two countries that does trade – justifies the US-Mexico or China-Japan aff. Outweighs aff flex -- prep is determined by the lit and we only have 2 months to debate the topic and it provides better link magnitude to all your generics because this is the statis point the topic is centered around. 3 Precision - even if all EU member states are in the WTO that doesn’t mean all WTO member nations are in the EU – prefer our interp – we have evidence from the WTO that explains what coordinated action looks like. 4 Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.
9/18/21
SeptOct - T - WTO v2
Tournament: St Marks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Lindsey Williams 1 Interp – the Affirmative must defend that all members of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce Intellectual Property for Medicines. Actions regarding IP protections by member nations of the WTO must go through TRIPS. Microsoft Academic No Date “Trips Agreement” https://academic.microsoft.com/topic/2780454388/publication/search?q=TRIPS20Agreementandqe=And(Composite(F.FId253D2780454388)252CTy253D27027)andf=andorderBy=0Elmer The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is administered by the WTO. TRIPS applies to all member states. WTO No Date "Frequently asked questions about TRIPS trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights in the WTO" https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm#Who'sSignedElmer Does the TRIPS Agreement apply to all WTO members? All the WTO agreements (except for a couple of “plurilateral” agreements) apply to all WTO members. The members each accepted all the agreements as a single package with a single signature — making it, in the jargon, a “single undertaking”. The TRIPS Agreement is part of that package. Therefore it applies to all WTO members. (More on the single undertaking.) 2 Violation – they don’t, they specify member nations of the EU. 3 Standards – a Limits – there are 164 countries in the WTO and the Aff’s model justifies single country Affs or permutation of country Affs literally unlimiting the Topic – this eviscerates a predictable stasis and shifts away from the core topic controversy of global medical access vs innovation. CCA 21 "World Trade Organization" https://advocacy.calchamber.com/international/trade/world-trade-organization/ (The California Chamber of Commerce is the largest broad-based business advocate to government in California, working at the state and federal levels for policies to strengthen California.)Elmer The WTO and its 164 member nations is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified or approved in their parliaments or legislatures. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters and importers conduct their business. Pre-empting PICs – 1 No Link – Medicine and IP Spec avoid all PICs since they’re all COVID-specific – the impact to our interp is smarter Plans not infinite PICs and 2 Yes Solvency Deficits – global access, TRIPS modelling, and signalling all apply b Ground – Specifying Countries obliterates generics like Innovation that only apply to universal actions since their Link is scope-based – no generics spill-down to countries since the 1AR will say “other countries fill-in” which requires neg research on every possible Aff. 4 TVA – Affirm all member nations reduce Data Exclusivity IP Protections for Medicines. 5 Paradigm Issues – a Topicality is Drop the Debater – it’s a fundamental baseline for debate-ability. b Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. c No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive. d Topicality outweighs 1AR Theory – 1 Outweighs on scope cause 1AC abuse effects every speech – we had to be abusive since the 1AC was abusive first and 2 Better for norming since we have more speeches to discuss what’s the best norm for debate.
10/19/21
SeptOct - Th - Spec - IP
Tournament: Meadows | Round: 1 | Opponent: Canyon Crest ED | Judge: TJ Maher Interp – affs must specify intellectual property in a delineated text in the 1AC. To clarify, you can defend whole rez but you just have to specify what IP is. IP is flexible and has too many interps – normal means shows no consensus and makes the round irresolvable since the judge doesn’t know how to compare between types of offense and OW since it’s a side constraint on decision making. Saha and Bhattacharya 11 Chandra Nath Saha (Quality Assurance Department, Claris Lifesciences Ltd) and Sanjib Bhattacharya (Pharmacognosy Division, Bengal School of Technology, A College of Pharmacy). “Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry”. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology Research. 2011 Apr-Jun; 2(2): 88–93. Accessed 7/30/21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217699/Xu It is obvious that management of IP and IPR is a multidimensional task and calls for many different actions and strategies which need to be aligned with national laws and international treaties and practices. It is no longer driven purely by a national perspective. IP and its associated rights are seriously influenced by the market needs, market response, cost involved in translating IP into commercial venture and so on. In other words, trade and commerce considerations are important in the management of IPR. Different forms of IPR demand different treatment, handling, planning, and strategies and engagement of persons with different domain knowledge such as science, engineering, medicines, law, finance, marketing, and economics. Each industry should evolve its own IP policies, management style, strategies, etc. depending on its area of specialty. Pharmaceutical industry currently has an evolving IP strategy. Since there exists the increased possibility that some IPR are invalid, antitrust law, therefore, needs to step in to ensure that invalid rights are not being unlawfully asserted to establish and maintain illegitimate, albeit limited, monopolies within the pharmaceutical industry. Still many things remain to be resolved in this context. 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 – triggers presumption since the aff wasn’t subject to well researched scrutiny. We lose access to nuclear deterrence DA’s, Innovation DA’s, basic case turns, and core process counter plans that have different definitions and 1NC pre-round prep. 2 Ground – not defining hurts my strategy since they can shift out as I ask DA questions, so I err on the side of caution and read generics which get destroyed by AC frontlines. 3 Real World – policy makers will always define the entity that they are prohibiting. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, actors circumvent since there’s no specific object of the plan and means their solvency can’t actualize. IP spec isn’t regressive or arbitrary – its core topic lit for what happens when the aff is implemented and cannot be discounted from prohibition policies that require enforcement to function.
10/30/21
SeptOct - Th - Spec - Tribal Influence
Tournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: McNeil | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo Interp – The aff must specify the influence and decision-making powers of tribal authorities over implementation of the plan in tribal lands in a delineated text in the 1AC. Violation – they dotn
Ambiguity is a tool for settlers to define the terms of engagement with tribes. The liberal intentions of the 1AC don’t matter—absent defined standards, the policies will reproduce colonial domination. Steinman ’12 Steinman, Erich. “Settler Colonial Power and the American Indian Sovereignty Movement: Forms of Domination, Strategies of Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 117, No. 4, January 2012, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662708. PeteZ A traditional definition of "sovereignty" is: "The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed."' 3 Questions regarding the sovereign rights of tribes are often the starting point of any federal Indian law issue. Although the whole of federal Indian law is quite complex,14 the essence of tribal sovereignty is simply the extent to which a tribe can attend to its own affairs and control its own cultural, societal, and economic development free from outside restraints. Under the current legal and political regimes, the extent of tribal control is ambiguous. The Handbook of Federal Indian Law lists three "fundamental principles" that demonstrate the anomalous and restricted nature of tribal sovereignty: (1) Indian tribes possess all the powers of a sovereign state; (2) conquest renders the tribes subject, however, to the legislative authority of the United States and terminates the tribes' external sovereign powers, but does not affect the internal sovereign powers of the tribes; and (3) these powers are subject to qualification by treaties and congressional legislation.' 5 Cohen's three principles demonstrate the dichotomy between internal and external sovereignty16 that pervades the concept of tribal sovereignty. Tribes are supposedly full sovereigns with respect to their own internal affairs and interests. At the same time, however, the United States government has completely extinguished their external sovereign powers.17 This state of affairs might not be problematic if defined standards for maintaining the relationship between the tribal and federal governments existed and the relationship were based upon the consent of the tribes. The history of tribal-federal relations demonstrates, however, that neither standards nor consent exist, and that the relationship is uncertain at best. Tribal-federal relations have periodically oscillated between two diametrically opposed views on the status of Indian Tribes. At one end of the spectrum is the belief that tribes are independent political communities and should control their own development.'8 At the other end lies the belief that the tribal system should be dismantled and individual Indians should be assimilated into the greater American society.19 While these views appear to be in extreme conflict, their implementation produces very similar results. The United States government dominates the tribal-federal relationship, allowing it to manipulate the situation to protect federal interests. The following historical background will demonstrate how the lack of definition and consent in the relationship promotes federal dominance. Vote neg— 1 – Critical Education – The policymaking process is not innocent. Force them to study how their practice of fiat can itself reproduce settler colonialism. For tribes, these details are life and death. 2 – Ground – Tribal sovereignty is the first question in any debate about policies that affect natives – avoiding it is unfair, irresponsible, and bad for education. 3 – Presumption – If their framing is right, then the state will always manipulate its policies to screw over tribes – you should presume no sovereignty. 4 – CX doesn’t check: (A) My interp forces them to research these issues before round. (B) I can’t prep a strat against their aff until CX. (C) Footnoting DA—reduces crucial issues of sovereignty to a mere afterthought. (D) Specifying sovereignty should be the default—I shouldn’t have to ask.
Fairness is a voter and comes first – A debate’s a game that requires effective competition and negation, which makes their offense inevitable, it internal link turns clash and engagement. Education – it’s the only portable impact to debate CI – a) brightlines are arbitrary and self-serving which doesn’t set good norms b) it collapses since weighing between brightlines rely on offense defense DTD – a) it’s the only way to may up for time spent on theory b) it’s the only way to deter future abuse No RVI’s- a) logic – you shouldn’t win for being fair b) clash – people go all in on theory which decks substance engagement c) chilling effect – people will be too scared to read theory because RVI’s encourage baiting theory