Yerba Buena Nguyen Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact Info | Finals | You | Andres Marquez |
|
|
| |
| Decent Human Being Stuff | Semis | You | Me |
|
| ||
| Jack Howe | 2 | Harker AM | Joel Lemuel |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 3 | Orange Lutheran AZ | Asher Towner |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Westwood AY | Scott Brown |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Peninsula AB | Asher Towner |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | Sidwell SW | Derek Hilligoss |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Carnegie Vanguard SR | Joseph Georges |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Triples | Southlake Carroll PK | Ben Cortez, Joshua Michael, Julian Kuffour |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 2 | Harker GS | Vanessa Nguyen |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 4 | Immaculate Heart JL | Scott Brown |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 6 | Troy Independent AP | Gerard Grigsby |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle Classic | Octas | Lynbrook SM | Ben Cortez, Samathan McLoughlin, Gordon Krauss |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Contact Info | Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Andres Marquez Please ask me before running disclosure! Cool thanks! |
| Jack Howe | 2 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Joel Lemuel 1ac - EU Trade Secrets |
| Jack Howe | 3 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Asher Towner 1ac - Vaccine Imperialism |
| Jack Howe | 6 | Opponent: Westwood AY | Judge: Scott Brown 1ac - Evergreening |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Asher Towner 1ac - Covid Vaccines (racism) |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: Sidwell SW | Judge: Derek Hilligoss 1ac - Queer Community Care |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Joseph Georges 1ac - Evergreening |
| Loyola | Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Ben Cortez, Joshua Michael, Julian Kuffour 1ac - Marjuana |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 2 | Opponent: Harker GS | Judge: Vanessa Nguyen 1ac - covid |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart JL | Judge: Scott Brown 1ac - Covid |
| Nano Nagle Classic | 6 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Gerard Grigsby 1ac - Racial Cap K aff |
| Nano Nagle Classic | Octas | Opponent: Lynbrook SM | Judge: Ben Cortez, Samathan McLoughlin, Gordon Krauss 1ac - Biopiracy |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InformationTournament: Contact Info | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Andres Marquez Stuff to know:Email - kastella2004@gmail.com Things to tell me:- your pronouns Things to know:- I'm from a UDL If you have any other questions or concerns that are not listed, please reach out! Contact me about previous positions and I'd be more than happy to help! | 7/13/21 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: Decent Human Being Stuff | Round: Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: Me Additionally, I want to make the round a safe space for you as well, so I will try my best to do the same. Please let me know just in case! Disclaimer: If you do not give me warnings or you create a dangerous and unsafe environment, I will not hesitate to read theory against you I've already dealt with people authenticity checking me either on things such as queerness and disability and prefer not to deal with that again, thanks. I also had hateful and triggering language being presented without warning me, so please, it's really not that hard. Let's not make this any less accessible than it already is. 9/18 - First update of the year!!! Someone called me dumb in a round, come on. Please don't do this or I will read theory and this won't be a fun round for anyone. | 9/18/21 |
1 - Theory - Ableist LanguageTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Joel Lemuel Interp - Debaters shouldn’t use ableist langue – they did – they said dumb twiceDeaf or Dumb assume one is ‘silent’ or that they have a learning disabilityClark and Marsh, Disability activists, 2 AND hear, and the dumb to speak" (Mark 7:37). Ableism must be challenged in rhetoricPrefer – Violence – means theyre harming communities and using bad language – you should vote for safety and care – making me not only feel "dumb" but theyre using violent language - DTD not DTA – the damage has already been done and they can’t make up for what they did – I don’t get a 3nr | 9/18/21 |
1- Theory - DisclosureTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Joel Lemuel 1A~ Interpretation: The aff must disclose cases on the 2020-2021 NDCA wiki at least 30 minutes before the round.B~ Violation: They don’t disclose, and I checked at 10:00. I have screenshots.C~ Standards —1~ Quality engagement—disclosure allows in-depth preparation before the round which checks back against unpredictable positions and allows debaters to effectively write case negs and blocks—allows for reciprocal engagement where each side has an equal opportunity to prepare as opposed to scouting capacity to determine success, and incentivizes in-depth debates which is key to clash and good topic education. Clash is key to education because it forces in depth discussion and analysis about the topic2~ Reciprocity—the majority of national circuit buys into disclosure and put stuff on the wiki. They get access to cites and cards for cases and prep, which improves quality ground and means they can predict what other people are running, but we can’t predict them. This outweighs—a) every reason disclosure is good is an advantage for them and not me, b) view their counter-interp with a grain of salt since it’s self-serving. Reciprocity key to fairness—ensures equal access to the ballot.3~ Academic Ethics— Full disclosure deters mis-cutting, card-clipping, power-tagging, abuse of brackets and ellipses, and plagiarism—independent voter for academic honesty—it’s a real-world norm and debate loses educational value if we can just make up cards.Use competing interps – 1AR interps aren’t bidirectional and the neg should have to defend their norm since they have more time.Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive activity and needs both debaters to be on an equal playing field argumentatively.Education is a voter – debate is a school funded activity and there for our educational benefit.No RVIs—the neg should reasonably have the ability to test whether or not the aff is abusive. Not all shells are yes/no and the neg doesn’t know the quality of the 1ar because the aff has infinite prep which means RVIs chill reasonable theory arguments, proliferating abuse and destroy substantive education by making the entire debate about theory post-1ac | 9/18/21 |
SO - CP - Abolish WTOTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 3 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Asher Towner 1CP: The Member states of the world trade organization should abolish the institutionWTO as an institutional is unethical and perpetuates unfettered colonialism violence and capitalist exploitationGodrej 20 AND world – were living on less than $5.50 a day. | 9/18/21 |
SO - CP - ReinvestmentTournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Joseph Georges 3CP: Pharmaceutical companies should reinvest marketing budgets to RandDSolves the aff without risking IP being taken away, which is important for RandD – companies spend more on marketing in squoSwanson 15 ~Ana Swanson, 2-11-2015, "Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research," Washington Post, accessed 9-5-2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/~~ kn AND , but an estimated $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals. IP protections are key to innovation – recouping startup costs and high risk of failureGrabowski et al 15 ~(Henry, Professor of Economics, member of the faculty for the Health Sector Management Program, and Director of the Program in Pharmaceuticals and Health Economics at Duke University) "The Roles of Patents and Research And Development Incentives In Biopharmaceutical Innovation," Health Affairs, 2/2015~ JL AND protection plays a key role in funding and partnership opportunities for such firms. Capitalism created international law to spread capitalism. Any agreements on an international level by countries comes with it expanding their interest to other parties yet large power players can disregard those same laws as there is an unequal relationship between states, altering how institutional organizations functionChimni 17 ("Towards an Integrated Marxist Approach to International Law (IMAIL) In International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches (pp. 440-550). by B.S. Chimni (Legal scholar, Distinguished Professor of International Law at Jindal Global Law School and served on the Academic Advisory Committee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 96-00) ambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107588196.009) 0:43 AND basic factor in defining the nature and fate of the corresponding institutions’. 135 | 9/6/21 |
SO - Counteradvocacy - DisabilityTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Sidwell SW | Judge: Derek Hilligoss CounteradvocacyCounter advocacy: People ought to take control of medicine and its intellectual property rights away from member states of the WTO without referencing "hands"Hands is ableist.Tran 19 ("Disability Justice in the Work place" by Dr. Kim Tran. Ready set go. https://www.thereadyset.co/blog/disability-justice-in-the-workplace April feb 26, 2019 AND the other." Ableism is pervasive, subtle and ubiquitous; it’s everywhere. | 9/5/21 |
SO - K - CapTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Asher Towner 2The affirmative is a futile compromise in the battlefield of capitalism. Even softening ip protections will not resolve contradictions and inequalities in society but only preserve laborers needed for the capitalist economy to function.Rikowski 2006 ("A Marxist Analyhsis of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights." By Ruthe Rikowski (Lecturer at London South Bank University. Senior Edoitor for Chandos Information Processional Series, and author of multiple books and journal articles.) Volume 4, Number 4 2006 of Policy Futures in Education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/pfie.2006.4.4.396) 0:24 AND capitalism and replace it with socialism and eventually with communism in my opinion. Capitalism created international law to spread capitalism. Any agreements on an international level by countries comes with it expanding their interest to other parties yet large power players can disregard those same laws as there is an unequal relationship between states, altering how institutional organizations functionChimni 17 ("Towards an Integrated Marxist Approach to International Law (IMAIL) In International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches (pp. 440-550). by B.S. Chimni (Legal scholar, Distinguished Professor of International Law at Jindal Global Law School and served on the Academic Advisory Committee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 96-00) ambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107588196.009) 0:43 AND basic factor in defining the nature and fate of the corresponding institutions’. 135 International Law’s foundation to preserve human rights and freedoms of all people have been twisted and turned to be used as another tool within the neoliberal regime to conquer and feed the military war machine while creating more human rights violations along the way.Heuer and Schirmer 98 ("Human Rights Imperialism" by Uwe-Jens Heuer (member of the dem soc budestag group on questions of law and justice) and Dr Gregor Schirmer (assistant to heuer) Monthly Review March 1, 1998. Accessed 12-17-2012. https://monthlyreview.org/1998/03/01/human-rights-imperialism/) 0:25 AND social and economic rights requires more attention than it has so far received. Cap causes extinction – nuclear war, environmental destruction, and social inequality.Brown, 05 (Charles, Professor of Economics and Research Scientist at the University of Michigan, 05/13/2005, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2005w15/msg00062.htm) 0:26 AND at large remains a shameful fact of life in the U.S. Capitalism is the overarching totality that governs all oppression.McLaren et al, 4 (Peter and Valerie Scatamburlo-D’Annibale, University of Windsor, Ontario, University of California, 2004, Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol 36 No 2, "Class Dismissed? Historical Materialism and the politics of ‘difference,’") AND educators and theorists must cease displacing class analysis with the politics of difference. The alternative is the communist hypothesis! Thought experiments like the alt allow us to hollow out capitalist spaces and destroy faith in the system.Herod 04 – James Herod author of several books on capitalism and social activist since 1968 Getting Free 2004 http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman'g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm (0:26) AND who democratically and cooperatively self-determine the shape of their social world. | 9/4/21 |
SO - K - Cruel OptimismTournament: Nano Nagle Classic | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lynbrook SM | Judge: Ben Cortez, Samathan McLoughlin, Gordon Krauss 3We can describe this condition as cruel optimism, an attachment to a possibility that is ultimately impossible or harmful. Sustaining fantasies of social transformation requires an intimate, proximate affective attachment, which debate conveniently provides to judges in the form of teams, but only at the cost of the detached apathy that explains how easily we pack up and do it all over again next round.Berlant 11 ~Lauren, George M. Pullman Professor, Department of English, University of Chicago, Cruel Optimism, Routledge: Duke University Press, 2011, p. 33-6~ AND worn out by the promises that they have attached to in this world. Instead we must refuse the politics of liberalism and its accompanying economization of injury and suffering—our politics does not ignore the violence of the world, but rather refuses those particular representations and values which frame violence in favor of a politics of sensuous life.Abbas ’10 /Asma, Professor and Division Head in Social Studies, Political Science, Philosophy at the Liebowitz Center for International Studies at Bard College at Simon’s Rock, Liberalism and Human Suffering: Materialist Reflections on Politics, Ethics, and Aesthetics, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pg. Pg. 183 - 187/ AND of newer forms of joy, desire, hope, and life itself. | 10/11/21 |
SO - T - EnforcementTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Peninsula AB | Judge: Asher Towner 1Interpretation - Affirmatives must specify and separately delineate an enforcement mechanism used to reduce intellectual property protections for medicinesViolation: they don’tStandards1~ Shiftiness- They can redefine the 1AC’s enforcement mechanism in the 1AR which allows them to recontextualize their enforcement mechanism to wriggle out of DA’s since all DA links are predicated on type of enforcement i.e. international perception das, econ da, research da’s that may apply to certain medicines but not all or only to specific countries.2~ Real World- Policy makers will always specify how the mandates of the plan should be endorsed. It also means zero solvency, absent spec, voters can circumvent the Aff’s policy since there is no delineated way to enforce the affirmative which means there’s no way to actualize any of their solvency arguments.ESpec isn’t regressive or arbitrary- it’s an active part of drafting ban treaties and is central to any advocacy about the reduction of medical IPs since the only uniqueness of a reduction is how effective its enforcement isFairness – Debate is a competitive activity and the better debater must win. Education – it’s the only portable skill we take out of round.Drop the debater – 1~ a loss deters future abuse 2~ dropping the arg severs from your original advocacy which creates a 7-6 timeskew when you read new offense.Competing interps – 1~ Your brightline is arbitrary and based on what you did rather than the best one. 2~ Collapses – offense defense debate about your brightline is competing interps.No RVI on T – 1~ logic – you shouldn’t win for being cheating and being a moving target – outweighs since logic is a litmus test for arguments. 2~ they encourage you to read an abusive aff and prep out T. 3~ enables us to return to substance and get that education rather than debating T the whole time. | 9/4/21 |
SO - T - FrameworkTournament: Nano Nagle Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Troy Independent AP | Judge: Gerard Grigsby 1Interp and Violation: The affirmative must only defend that the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.– they don’t and defend an individual rhetorical decolonization of IPResolved means a policyWords and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. "Resolved". 1964. AND ," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". WTO is an international trading organizationWTO ND ~World Trade Organization, ND, "WTO," accessed 9-17-2021, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto'e/whatis'e/inbrief'e/inbr'e.htm~~ kn Reduce means to make smaller.Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online
AND 6. (archaic) besiege and capture (a town or fortress). Vote neg:Predictable Limits – predictable limits are key to facilitating clash – ceding the focus on the agent and intellectual properties on medicine, which already has a large literature base, changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep, which structurally favors the aff because they speak last and use perms – key to engage a prepared adversary and a target of mutual contestation. This is a prior question to whether or not their discussion is valuable because it’s impossible to generate discussions around the 1AC unless the neg can engage it. It’s a question of one debate, not broader structural inequalitiesMovements – the focus of left-on-left debate must be on the question of medical IPs and how we can resolve it in our viscinity. Now is a unique moment where movements like the the Global Commission on HIV and the Law are devising strategies to approach the realities of IP and build coalitional momentum – turns the aff – the aff’s disavowal of medical IPs as a starting point of research and conversation devolves debate into "me-search" rather than exploring the most pertinent and persuasive issues.Truth testing – unlimited topics make assessing the validity of the 1ac’s truth claims impossible AND cause concessionary ground which creates incentives for avoidance – it’s also key to advocacy skillsFairness – post facto topic adjustment and debates about scholarship breed reactionary generics and allow the aff to cement their infinite prep advantage. They can specialize in 1 area of literature for 4 years which gives them a huge edge over people switching topics every 2 months – this crushes clash because all neg prep is based on the rez as a stable stasis point and they create a structural disincentive to do research – we lose 90 of negative ground while the aff still gets the perm which makes being neg impossible.SSD is good – it forces debaters to consider a controversial issue from multiple perspectives. Non-T affs allow individuals to establish their own metrics for what they want to debate leading to ideological dogmatism. Even if they prove the topic is bad, our argument is that the process of preparing and defending proposals is an educational benefit of engaging it.TVA: The way in which the fiat would happen already includes affirmatives reason why racial capitalism is problematic in the squo – the TVA is full rez because the process is doable in the thing – anything else is neg groundUse competing interps – topicality is question of models of debate which they should have to proactively justify and we’ll win reasonability links to our offense.Drop the debater because dropping the arg is severance which moots 7 minutes of 1nc offenseNo rvis—it’s your burden to be fair and T—same reason you don’t win for answering inherency or putting defense on a disad.They can’t weigh the case—lack of preround prep means their truth claims are untested which you should presume false—they’re also only winning case because we couldn’t engage with itNo impact turns—exclusions are inevitable because we only have 45 minutes so it’s best to draw those exclusions along reciprocal lines to ensure a role for the negativeExtra topicality is a voting issue—justifies affs adding an infinite combination of offense to their advocacy outside of the resolution, exploding affs. Anything such as covid patent waivers or patent buys outs would be topical. | 10/9/21 |
SO - T - IP SpecTournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Joseph Georges 1Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in the 1AC.Four types of IP that are vastly different.Ackerman 17 ~Peter; Founder and CEO, Innovation Asset Group, Inc; "The 4 Main Types of Intellectual Property and Related Costs," Decipher; 1/6/17; https://www.innovation-asset.com/blog/the-4-main-types-of-intellectual-property-and-related-costs~~ Justin AND weigh the competitive significance of your secrets against the cost of protecting them. Violation:Negate:1~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what intellectual properties the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific IP DAs, IP PICs, and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing.CX can’t resolve this and is bad because A~ Not flowed B~ Skews 6 min of prep and pre-round prep C~ They can lie and no way to check D~ Debaters can be shady.2~ Real World- policy makers will always specify what the object of change is. That outweighs since debate has no value without portable application. It also means zero solvency since the WTO, absent spec, can circumvent aff’s policy since they can say they didn’t know what was affected.This spec shell isn’t regressive- it literally determines what the affirmative implements and who it affectsFairness – 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, b~ set better norms for debate and c~ we indict the entire advocacy – dta makes no sense.Competing interps – ~a~ reasonability is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention since there’s no clear norm, ~b~ it creates a race to the top where we create the best possible norms for debate.No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 9/6/21 |
SO - T - No Delay PlansTournament: Loyola | Round: Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Ben Cortez, Joshua Michael, Julian Kuffour 2Interp: Debaters may not run delay plansViolation: they doReasons to prefer:Predictability: Can’t predict how long delays last or if the delays will be implemented then un implemented then implemented again making neg prep impossible on the implementation of the affirmative.Ground: Affs can spike out of any negative arguments linking to the aff based on implementation because lit is based on permanent policiesDestroys limits: Lets affirmative add delay planks to all affs and spec infinite amount of times on duration of them. Makes debate impossibleVoter for fairness and educationPrefer counter interps. Reasonability is arbritary and invites judge intervention | 9/6/21 |
SO - T - PluralsTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Joel Lemuel 2
| 9/18/21 |
SO - T - Reduce ver 1Tournament: Loyola | Round: Triples | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Ben Cortez, Joshua Michael, Julian Kuffour 3Reduce means a net decreasePublic Law 87-253 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, 97th US Congress, Sept 8, 1982, Lexis) AND other action. which is a scheme or device to qualify for payment. Reduce means to make smaller.Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online
AND 6. (archaic) besiege and capture (a town or fortress). Violation: The plan text says "delay" enforcement for cannabis patents which does not result in a net decrease of those patents – blatantly untopicalStandardsGround – topic disads like the innovation DA assume that there is a long-term result from the aff because a reduction results in a decrease of patents for the long term future. Their aff would skirt those discussionResearch -The impact is fairness and education | 9/6/21 |
SO - T - WTOTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AM | Judge: Joel Lemuel 3Interp and Violation: the affirmative must defend the member nations of the world trade organization – they don’t even know if they doWTO is an international trading organizationWTO ND ~World Trade Organization, ND, "WTO," accessed 9-17-2021, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto'e/whatis'e/inbrief'e/inbr'e.htm~~ kn standards:Predictability - there a ton of countrie sthat arent in the wto means – they can no link out of args and pick and choose countries with no lit baseLimits and ground: key to specs and counterTopic education -– in-depth discussion of the topic requires a clear understanding of what it means – lets us get into the policy details of what the plan would do and how states would react to it – otherwise all ed is trapped at the surface-level.voter for fairness and educationuse competing interps | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/18/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/4/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/6/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
9/6/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
| |
10/11/21 | kastella2004@gmailcom |
|