Jump to content

Recommended Posts

what arguements should I have in my block, how many cards of each category, and what warrents should those cards be? So far i have:

1) Nonunique-- fast track (1)

2) No link-- Obama has no PC, PC not real, plan popular (3)

3) No Internal Link-- US no influence on Asia, trade + econ resilient (2)

4) No Impact-- nuc war hype (1)

5) Thumper-- Iran Nuclear deal (1)

Edited by TopicalityDropper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what arguements should I have in my block, how many cards of each category, and what warrents should those cards be? So far i have:

1) Nonunique-- fast track (1)

2) No link-- Obama has no PC, PC not real, plan popular (3)

3) No Internal Link-- US no influence on Asia, trade + econ resilient (2)

4) No Impact-- nuc war hype (1)

5) Thumper-- Iran Nuclear deal (1)

 

This position seems exceptionally weak to me.  The US has been instrumental in facilitating bilateral free trade agreements between its allies in Asia.  Probably not worth the effort or time to make the argument.

 

And if their impact is nuclear war, they're probably running the TPP scenario wrong.

 

A stronger no link argument, btw, would be that TPP isn't costing Obama any PC (even assuming PC is a thing).  He's not relying on allies in Congress to push it through, he's relying on his political opponents, because TPP is something Republicans want, and are even willing to do it with Obama.  

 

(Now, if their link story is plan offends Republicans and causes them to withdraw support, that's not a PC argument and all your no links are useless.  Even plan being popular doesn't matter if the GOP Congress doesn't see it that way).

 

I might include arguments on timeframe (the up-down vote on TPP won't happen for awhile yet, aff plan is sufficiently removed in time to not directly impact it) and Obamacare proves TPP can't be derailed, because if it could, it already would have been, since Obamacare is horribly unpopular with republicans.  Together, these work as a double bind: if timeframe doesn't matter, then they have to explain why Obamacare hasn't killed Republican enthusiasm for TPP.  If Obamacare is too long ago, then timeframe kills the trade-off between plan and TPP too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact Turns. That's all you need. The rest of this defensive crap is how to argue if you're trying to "not lose". If you want to win, you go for impact turns. Luckily, TPP good is just stupid as fuck and ignorant of what it actually does. Did you know that the TPP makes it so that surgery procedures can be patented and people sued for using them without a license? Did you know that the TPP is being negotiated in secret? Did you know that major changes in Copyright Laws similar to SOPA would be secretly ratified by the TPP (and SOPA is bad for this arg)? Did you know that every major tech industry would explode and that's why they protested SOPA so virulently (blackouts)? Well you do now! For some reason most CX debaters don't actually read about the bill and instead fall back on pre-baked camp files made by even more baked college kids. Now, go join the Electronic Frontier Foundations supporter list and win some fuckin' debate rounds! 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact Turns. That's all you need. The rest of this defensive crap is how to argue if you're trying to "not lose". If you want to win, you go for impact turns. Luckily, TPP good is just stupid as fuck and ignorant of what it actually does. Did you know that the TPP makes it so that surgery procedures can be patented and people sued for using them without a license? Did you know that the TPP is being negotiated in secret? Did you know that major changes in Copyright Laws similar to SOPA would be secretly ratified by the TPP (and SOPA is bad for this arg)? Did you know that every major tech industry would explode and that's why they protested SOPA so virulently (blackouts)? Well you do now! For some reason most CX debaters don't actually read about the bill and instead fall back on pre-baked camp files made by even more baked college kids. Now, go join the Electronic Frontier Foundations supporter list and win some fuckin' debate rounds! 

Even if the TPP is bad from a moral/privacy sense, in 90% of policy rounds, none of the impacts you've isolated outweigh the Pivot/Asia war scenario the neg is going for. Regardless of whether or not this is a bad model for debate (which is for another topic), if teams want to win the majority of their rounds, they're probably going to have to engage in the "defense" you find pointless. 

 

That being said, a solid 2AC frontline would probably include the following

1) Non-UQ -- thumpers and TPP won't pass now (it's at the up/down vote stage, unless the team is very poorly informed they won't run a TPA scenario

2) No link/Link turn -- plan popular, winners win, PC not real

3) No I/L -- TPP not key to pivot/Pivot fails (that's the usual scenario, fix if necessary)

4) Impact defense

 

That's the 'safest' strategy. If you want to play it a bit riskier, you can either go for the I/L turn (TPP/Pivot causes Asia war) or the impact turn (Asia war good). Make sure to avoid double turns. 

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact Turns. That's all you need. The rest of this defensive crap is how to argue if you're trying to "not lose". If you want to win, you go for impact turns. Luckily, TPP good is just stupid as fuck and ignorant of what it actually does. Did you know that the TPP makes it so that surgery procedures can be patented and people sued for using them without a license? Did you know that the TPP is being negotiated in secret? Did you know that major changes in Copyright Laws similar to SOPA would be secretly ratified by the TPP (and SOPA is bad for this arg)? Did you know that every major tech industry would explode and that's why they protested SOPA so virulently (blackouts)? Well you do now! For some reason most CX debaters don't actually read about the bill and instead fall back on pre-baked camp files made by even more baked college kids. Now, go join the Electronic Frontier Foundations supporter list and win some fuckin' debate rounds!

 

Did you know surgical techniques can already be patented, and doctors sued for using them? Just type "surgical technique" into Google Patents. Here's a sample:

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US7591821?dq=surgical+technique&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMI4NKs8-69xwIVgfCACh0M6AWK

 

Aside from that, the other impacts you mention aren't that bad compared to war in Asia or economic loss from continued tariffs. Like all politics scenarios, this one is most vulnerable at the link, not the impact.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know surgical techniques can already be patented, and doctors sued for using them? Just type "surgical technique" into Google Patents. Here's a sample:

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US7591821?dq=surgical+technique&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMI4NKs8-69xwIVgfCACh0M6AWK

 

Aside from that, the other impacts you mention aren't that bad compared to war in Asia or economic loss from continued tariffs. Like all politics scenarios, this one is most vulnerable at the link, not the impact.

 

SOPA related policies would destroy the tech industry in this country. Easiest Royal 10 link in the world. It might be unrealistic but surly by only as much as the Asia War scenario (which is considerably more empirically denied than a SOPA related policy). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOPA related policies would destroy the tech industry in this country. Easiest Royal 10 link in the world. It might be unrealistic but surly by only as much as the Asia War scenario (which is considerably more empirically denied than a SOPA related policy).

 

Definitely a stretch. Let's take the EFF's summary, found here: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

 

Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety.

This affects other countries; it's the SQ in the U.S.

 

Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) [PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved.

Again, SQ in the U.S.

 

Create New Threats for Journalists and Whistleblowers: Dangerously vague text on the misuse of trade secrets, which could be used to enact harsh criminal punishments against anyone who reveals or even accesses information through a "computer system" that is allegedly confidential.

Essentially the SQ in the U.S. Criminal trade secret law is already a huge mess, especially after a really ugly Posner opinion last year.

 

Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

SQ in the U.S.

 

Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.

Unlikely to change anything in the US, because fair use is a Constitutional issue that supersedes treaties.

 

Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation. Users could be jailed or hit with debilitating fines over file sharing, and may have their property or domains seized even without a formal complaint from the copyright holder.

Again, this is SQ in the U.S., except for the last clause, which is likely unconstitutional.

 

Hardly "destroys the tech industry" kind of provisions, and there are plenty of cards about the economic benefits of strong IP (I built a whole Aff out of them on the Mexico topic). If I'm running a TPP politics scenario, I'd much rather argue the impact than the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a stretch. Let's take the EFF's summary, found here: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

 

 

This affects other countries; it's the SQ in the U.S.

 

 

Again, SQ in the U.S.

 

 

Essentially the SQ in the U.S. Criminal trade secret law is already a huge mess, especially after a really ugly Posner opinion last year.

 

 

SQ in the U.S.

 

 

Unlikely to change anything in the US, because fair use is a Constitutional issue that supersedes treaties.

 

 

Again, this is SQ in the U.S., except for the last clause, which is likely unconstitutional.

 

Hardly "destroys the tech industry" kind of provisions, and there are plenty of cards about the economic benefits of strong IP (I built a whole Aff out of them on the Mexico topic). If I'm running a TPP politics scenario, I'd much rather argue the impact than the link.

 

The bottom one is the one that destroys the tech industry. Youtube literally can not exist in a world where any meaningful enforcement of copyright laws for non commercial uses happens. You need to win that the Supreme Court would attack (and rule unconstitutional) the last provisions. Additionally, I can get pretty good sources that indicate that internet piracy is a driving force for most of the profitability in things like the video games industry or music. It's not really about the TPP policies themselves (for the turn I'd be trying to win on) but more the idea that existing/new copyright laws would be enforced in any real degree. It's easy in the SQ for me to pirate Rick and Morty episodes, but it's also easy for media defender to figure out that I am doing it. In a world where large tech companies are meaningfully held accountable for copyrights, most large tech companies would be rather negatively affected. 

 

Also, if I'm wrong about that enforcement stuff and the TPP actually doesn't enforce copyright law any more strongly than the SQ, than it indicates your "strong IP good" stuff doesn't work due to no enforcement. 

 

 

 

Oh, and a hacker retaliation turn since a policy of this scope passing and being enforced would cause lots of retaliation from hacktivists. Especially in a world where circumventing DRM is made a crime (Internet freedom key to innovation is pretty easy to win, especially in the cryptography sector given that many innovations happen from cracking DRM) 

Oh, and that's not the status quo in the USA already. I fucking knew you were wrong on that https://www.eff.org/document/abbey-house-media-v-apple-inc. Federal judge rules that it is fully legal to share information about DRM circumvention when the goal is for taking actions that constitute as fair use. This means that even if the DMCA is bad, it's really shitty parts are not being enforced. The TPP would add specific language to make sure that literally any form of DRM circumvention would be a crime. 

Edited by RainSilves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom one is the one that destroys the tech industry. Youtube literally can not exist in a world where any meaningful enforcement of copyright laws for non commercial uses happens. You need to win that the Supreme Court would attack (and rule unconstitutional) the last provisions.

I had a long answer written to this yesterday with links and quotes, but my computer ate it. The summary is that if you follow the EFF link to the actual proposal at Wikileaks, it would only criminalize copyright infringement if it was willful and either commercial (current U.S. law) or non commercial but a "significant use" that substantially affects the value of the original work. The posting of an entire movie on YouTube might qualify--and it should, that's just stealing. The real problem would be if it got rid of current safe harbor provisions that protect YouTube from liability if it follows a notice and takedown policy (as it currently does). But I don't think there's anything in TPP that does that.

 

Additionally, I can get pretty good sources that indicate that internet piracy is a driving force for most of the profitability in things like the video games industry or music.

And I can get better sourced cards, from people in those industries, saying that piracy is killing profitability.

 

It's not really about the TPP policies themselves (for the turn I'd be trying to win on) but more the idea that existing/new copyright laws would be enforced in any real degree. It's easy in the SQ for me to pirate Rick and Morty episodes, but it's also easy for media defender to figure out that I am doing it. In a world where large tech companies are meaningfully held accountable for copyrights, most large tech companies would be rather negatively affected. 

TPP doesn't eliminate prosecutorial discretion. They're still going to go after the guys videotaping and redistributing pirated copies of Guardians of the Galaxy, not the guys downloading a few TV episodes.

 

Also, if I'm wrong about that enforcement stuff and the TPP actually doesn't enforce copyright law any more strongly than the SQ, than it indicates your "strong IP good" stuff doesn't work due to no enforcement. 

Most IP enforcement is through civil litigation, not criminal punishment. My "strong IP good" cards are focused on pharmaceuticals (which will happily litigate if the laws are there), trade secrets (tech companies would love to go after foreign economic espionage harder), and piracy being used to fund terrorism (the sort of target the government would go after, as opposed to college students downloading TV shows).

 

Oh, and a hacker retaliation turn since a policy of this scope passing and being enforced would cause lots of retaliation from hacktivists.

Probably non-unique--thanks, China and Russia!

 

Especially in a world where circumventing DRM is made a crime (Internet freedom key to innovation is pretty easy to win, especially in the cryptography sector given that many innovations happen from cracking DRM) 

Oh, and that's not the status quo in the USA already. I fucking knew you were wrong on that https://www.eff.org/document/abbey-house-media-v-apple-inc. Federal judge rules that it is fully legal to share information about DRM circumvention when the goal is for taking actions that constitute as fair use. This means that even if the DMCA is bad, it's really shitty parts are not being enforced. The TPP would add specific language to make sure that literally any form of DRM circumvention would be a crime.

 

You have this wrong; breaking DRM is a crime in the U.S. already under the DMCA. It's not contributory copyright infringement--that's the holding in Abbey House Media v. Apple--but it's still a crime (and the First Amendment protects the right to tell people how to commit a crime). The DMCA has an explicit clause that its anti-circumvention provisions are completely independent of copyright infringement law.

 

In sum: The TPP's anti-piracy measures would give the government a few extra tools to go after people who copy and distribute entire copyrighted works. That won't "break the Internet" any more than Kim Kardashian's rear end did. And if I'm running this DA, I'd still much rather go against an Aff that tries to do nothing but impact turn it than an Aff that makes a strong no link or no internal link argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the TPP is bad from a moral/privacy sense, in 90% of policy rounds, none of the impacts you've isolated outweigh the Pivot/Asia war scenario the neg is going for. Regardless of whether or not this is a bad model for debate (which is for another topic), if teams want to win the majority of their rounds, they're probably going to have to engage in the "defense" you find pointless. 

 

That being said, a solid 2AC frontline would probably include the following

1) Non-UQ -- thumpers and TPP won't pass now (it's at the up/down vote stage, unless the team is very poorly informed they won't run a TPA scenario

2) No link/Link turn -- plan popular, winners win, PC not real

3) No I/L -- TPP not key to pivot/Pivot fails (that's the usual scenario, fix if necessary)

4) Impact defense

 

That's the 'safest' strategy. If you want to play it a bit riskier, you can either go for the I/L turn (TPP/Pivot causes Asia war) or the impact turn (Asia war good). Make sure to avoid double turns. 

wait didn't fast-track pass already, meaning that congress can't debate over it?

 

also what's winners win?

Edited by TopicalityDropper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait didn't fast-track pass already, meaning that congress can't debate over it?

 

also what's winners win?

Congress can still debate it under fast track, but they can't amend it.

 

Winners win is the theory that winning a legislative fight improves Obama's position and makes it more likely he can pass TPP (or whatever bill is part of the politics scenario--this is a generic link turn for all politics DAs)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...