[eDebate] In Defense of IPR

Chris Thiele chris.thiele
Wed Apr 12 03:59:02 CDT 2006

Brad: Delay Happens Anyway


You got me, delay counterplans can always be run. Same with Veto Cheato.
Also the States CP. The difference is the about the likelihood.

A. The Docket. I think Bellon's post pointed out the procedural difference
that makes certain perhaps illegitimate counterplans more likely under a
Courts topic. An example is the docket, there is an explicit docket with the
court, trade off cards exist that are specific to Supreme Court political
capital. The Courts literature base points to better delay literature
(because a politics uniqueness card is clearly not enough to justify the
necessity of a delay counterplan, but maybe cards about how the court *should
wait* before delivering contentious decisions might be).

B. Lack of Congruence in Harm Areas ? the "Single but not too Single" Rant.
The only thing connecting an abortion debate and a free speech debate
together is the Supreme Court "overturn/overrule" clause. This means many
teams will, especially at the beginning of the year, will stick to this
congruence when writing their negative strategy. This means the State Courts
CP or the 9-0 CP or the Avoidance Cannon CP or the Congress CP will be run
because that is the only thing (other than perhaps CLS) that ties the topic
together. For Property Rights, you can always say property rights are bad,
or that increasing them has a bad signal world wide, or other generic
positions about the HARMS and not the ACTOR.

C. Bidirectionality of the Topic ? As Hester so eloquently pointed out, to
overturn Roe vs Wade or any court case for that matter may allow teams to
both say abortion is good (Roe did not go far enough with the whole
trimester limitation thing) or bad (Roe allows baby murder). This at least
doubles the work necessary for the grounds counterplans because a grounds
counterplan ruling on right to privacy issues against a case that presumably
said abortion was baby murder would solve probably none of the case.
About the existence of illegitimate counterplans ran this year, here's a
short list

1)      NU's do not single out China Counterplan.

2)      Harvard's Delay till after the Summit CP.

3)      Harvard's Diplomatic Engagement First, then Economic Pressure if
that fails CP @ CEDA against a fine Whitman SS case.

4)      Offsets anyone?

5)      GW's Object Fiat CP.

6)      Joel's Study CP

I'm sure there were many more. Although it doesn't really matter because
this topic at least had a unifying mechanism? pressure on China.

Brad: Grounds Specification Good

I agree, it is probably very educational. Can many teams keep up given the
potential bidirectionality or aff flexibility of the cases? An apt analogy
might be the high school topic. I've heard the high school topic is sweet
because it combined the benefits of a court topic ? that word
*authority*and grounds specification ? with a unidirectional mechanism
"decrease its
authority". Another (although maybe irrelevant) question would be: how would
have the treaty topic fared had affirmatives had to specify the reason why
they signed a particular treaty and were prone to counterplans that got to
PIC out of that reason?

You might even have a little of this debate if the affirmative chooses a
Court Actor for IPR (Clint's paper listed out the respective courts).

Brad: "Thiele has googled porn"

1) Music Property Rights may not be an impact in that paying for the next
Eminem Album is the zero point, but musical property rights have great
repercussions to OTHER patent regimes (whereas an abortion ruling is
unlikely to effect the next Ashcroft decision). Also, software patents are
hugely important for economic success both here and abroad now and in the
future (why do you think Omnipage Pro 15 costs so damn much?) Trade
Negotiations are centered around them. While one can eventually get to
nuclear war over the right to post as a member of NAMBLA on a forum
somewhere, the internal link is much easier when the issue is one of

2) Software piracy is also a huge business issue, which is indeed much
easier to enforce. Many small and medium businesses illegally use software
which they view as necessary for their economic performance. And lets not
forget pharmaceuticals. Or the Internet.  I'm amazed, someone as noble as
you, would pass up an opportunity to get amazing Biz Con debates for a
discussion about morality.

Brad: Deontology versus Util makes for great debate

I guess I have to respectively disagree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060412/c790c339/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list