Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[11]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[11]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-19 19:41:50.972
	1	+2016-11-19 19:41:50.0

Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,41 @@
	1	+When convened, the Electoral College of the United States should elect Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.
	2	+The House of Representatives and the senate of the United States should bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership up for a vote.
	3	+Yes
	4	+Romano 11/11 – Robert, Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (“Why the Trans­Pacific Partnership had to die after Trump’s win” Net Right Daily) RMT
	5	+On Nov. 11, the 12­nation Trans­Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact died a quiet death as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to pass the trade deal during the lame duck session of Congress, the Wall Street Journal reports.
	6	+The problem? Donald Trump won the election by taking away Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin from Democrats in the electoral college, denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. That was a combined 64 electoral votes, comprising the bulk of Trump’s win, and without which Democrats cannot hope to reclaim the White House anytime soon.
	7	+Trump did it by campaigning against the TPP and other unpopular trade deals like NAFTA and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and being granted permanent normal trade relations. After years of implementation by the Clinton administration and then under the Obama administration — which Congress just granted trade authority to — Trump was able successfully paint Democrats as the party of globalization and outsourcing.
	8	+Remarkably, even though Clinton had rescinded her nominal support for the TPP on the campaign trail — trying to stop the Democrat hemorrhaging of union household support — the Obama plan all along was to ram the trade deal through after she won the election.
	9	+“The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs. Clinton had won,” reported the Journal.
	10	+Which makes sense. A Trump loss would have been read as a repudiation of his trade position. That is, after Clinton was done fooling working class Americans that Democrats would stop these bad trade deals, Obama was going to push it through Congress over the holidays when nobody was looking. And then a President Clinton could sign its implementation into law later.
	11	+But the plan would stop that from happening the plan is spun as an attack on police credibility.
	12	+Johnson 15 Jenna; Reporter for The Washington Post; The Washington Post; 12/10/15; “Donald Trump wants the death penalty for those who kill police officers”; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/10/donald-trump-wants-the-death-penalty-for-those-who-kill-police-officers/
	13	+As Republican candidates have delicately tried to stake a position in the roiling debate over alleged brutality between police officers and minorities, Trump has firmly planted himself on the side of police. Trump has said in previous speeches that while every profession has its "bad apples," police officers have been unfairly criticized at a time when they need to be supported. Trump often responds to questions about the Black Lives Matter movement by saying that "all lives matter" and accusing President Obama of stirring up racial unrest.¶ This police union is the same one that in September urged police officers to boycott a Labor Day breakfast attended by President Obama and union leaders in Boston. At the time, the union head accused Obama of not being supportive enough of police officers.¶ "The police and the law enforcement in this country ~-~- I will never ever let them down, just remember that," Trump said on Thursday. "They've had a hard time. These forces throughout the country have had a hard time: A lot of people killed, a lot of people killed really violently."¶ It was a message that resonated with many officers, including Sgt. Deborah Batista of Middleborough, Mass., who is vice president of the union.¶ "He seems to be a supporter of law enforcement which is something that we have not seen from the current administration," said Batista, 53. "We are not popular of late, law enforcement."
	14	+
	15	+Extinction
	16	+Boskin 15 - professor of economics and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
	17	+(Michael, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade)
	18	+Past experience reinforces the view that, ultimately, voluntary trade is a good thing. Extreme protectionism in the early 1930s, following an era of relatively free international trade, had devastating consequences, ultimately setting the stage for the second world war. As the MIT economist Charles Kindleberger showed, America’s Smoot-Hawley tariff, in particular, helped to turn a deep recession into a global depression. Even before the war was over, major powers convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new international trade and finance regime, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Through a succession of lengthy and difficult global negotiations – the so-called “GATT rounds” – tariffs were steadily lowered for an increasing variety of goods. As a result, global trade grew faster than world GDP for most of the postwar period. After five years of talks, a wide-ranging trade deal is close between Pacific rim countries which could have long-reaching economic consequences. Here is what you need to know about the TPP Read more Virtually all economists agree that this shift toward freer trade greatly benefited the world’s citizens and enhanced global growth. The economists Jeffrey Frankel and David Romer estimate that, in general, trade has a sizeable positive effect on growth. At a time when growth is failing to meet expectations almost everywhere, the TPP thus seems like a good move. To be sure, because tariffs in the TPP member countries are already low (with some exceptions, such as Canada’s tariffs on dairy products and Japan’s on beef), the net benefit of eliminating them would be modest (except for a few items that are very sensitive to small price changes). But the TPP is also expected to reduce non-tariff barriers (such as red tape and protection of state enterprises); harmonise policies and procedures; and include dispute-settlement mechanisms. Though the TPP’s precise provisions have not been made public, political leaders in the member countries predict that the deal, once ratified and implemented, will add hundreds of billions of dollars to their economies and bolster employment. Smaller and developing economies will probably gain the most, relative to size, but everyone will benefit overall. Other important outcomes are not included in these calculations. The alternative to liberalising trade is not the status quo; it is a consistent move away from openness. This can occur in a number of ways, such as the erection of non-tariff barriers that favor domestic incumbents at the expense of lower-priced potential imports that would benefit consumers. Moreover, it is much easier to build mutually beneficial trade relationships than it is to resolve military and geopolitical issues, such as combating the Islamic State or resolving tensions in the South China Sea. But strong trade relationships have the potential to encourage cooperation – or, at least, discourage escalation of conflict – in other, more contentious areas. Still, there are some legitimate concerns about the TPP. Some worry that it could divert trade from non-member countries or undermine the moribund Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations (though 20 years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement had the opposite effect, kick-starting the Uruguay round). Given all of this – not to mention renewed attention to national borders, owing to contentious immigration issues, such as the influx of Middle Eastern refugees in Europe – the TPP’s ratification is far from certain, especially in the US. The concentrated interests that oppose the agreement may turn out to be more influential than the diffuse interests of all consumers. That would be a major loss. Allowing existing protectionist trade barriers to remain in place – or worsen – would not only deprive citizens in TPP countries of higher incomes; it would also deal a damaging blow to international cooperation.
	19	+Obama key to 21st century Cures Act - it’s a house and senate priority.
	20	+Whitman 11/11/16 (Elizabeth, reporter for Modern Healthcare Hopes for Precision Medicine Initiative, Cancer Moonshot rest with lame-duck Congress, www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161111/NEWS/161119982)
	21	+The election of Donald Trump to the presidency is poised to turn healthcare upside down, given his and other Republicans' vows to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
	22	+Also uncertain are the fates of initiatives by President Barack Obama's administration to galvanize medical progress in cancer and precision medicine specifically. A lame-duck Congress could help preserve them, amid fears that a Trump presidency portends severely diminished support for scientific and medical research.
	23	+“There is a great deal of bipartisan support for continuing these efforts,” Janet Marchibroda, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Health Innovation Initiative, said of the Cancer Moonshot and Precision Medicine Initiative. She added that several provisions in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures package, which a lame-duck Congress is expected to take up, aim to support both.
	24	+When Obama launched the Cancer Moonshot in January, he tasked Vice President Joe Biden with overseeing the effort to double the pace of cancer research and achieve a decade's worth of progress in five years.
	25	+The White House laid aside $1 billion for the initiative as “an initial down-payment” but said Congress would have to continue providing funding to ensure the moonshot's long-term success.
	26	+The Precision Medicine Initiative began a year earlier with $215 million to “pioneer a new model of patient-powered research” and shift medical care from one-size-fits-all to individualized treatments, tailored to a patient's genetic makeup, environment and lifestyle.
	27	+The 21st Century Cures Act, which would fund new medical research over the next five years to the tune of nearly $9 billion, passed the House last year, but the Senate has yet to pass it.
	28	+The latest version of the bill proposes to create the NIH and Cures Innovation Fund, which would receive $1.86 billion in funding every year from 2016 through 2020. Nearly $1.75 billion of that would be for biomedical research under the NIH. At least $500 million would go toward the Accelerating Advancement Program, under which the NIH director “partners with national research institutes and national centers to accomplish important biomedical research objectives.”
	29	+At the end of September, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate pledged that passing the legislation would be a priority before the end of the year.
	30	+Necessary to develop new antibiotics – it’s try or die
	31	+Dall 9/6/16 (Chris, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Health groups urge Senate to pass antibiotics bill, www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/09/health-groups-urge-senate-pass-antibiotics-bill
	32	+As Congress prepares to return to work today, some of the nation's leading health organizations are urging lawmakers to pass legislation that could make it easier to get federal approval of new antibiotics for tough-to-treat infections.
	33	+The legislation, known as the Promise for Antibiotics and Therapeutics for Health (PATH) Act, would establish a new "limited population antibacterial drug approval pathway" for antibiotics that treat serious or life-threatening infections for which there are few or no other options.
	34	+The bill is part of the broader 21st Century Cures Act, a collection of 19 bills that would make changes to how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs and medical devices. The House of the Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2015.
	35	+"The new pathway proposed by PATH is necessary to develop novel antibiotics and bring them to the patients that need them most," the organizations wrote in a letter sent today to Senate leaders and the ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which is reviewing the legislation. The letter was signed by 42 health organizations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
	36	+The groups said the PATH Act could help stimulate the discovery and development of new antibiotics, which they see as one element in the multi-pronged approach to combatting the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. They noted that it's been more than 30 years since a new class of antibiotic was discovered and developed—a period that's also seen a sharp rise in drug-resistant bacteria.
	37	+"The proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria—a result of decades of overuse combined with a lack of new drug development and innovation—threatens to bring us to a 'post-antibiotic' world in which even the most simple surgical procedure could have deadly consequences," the letter warns.
	38	+Extinction.
	39	+Davies 08 - Professor of Microbiology and Immunology @ University of British Columbia Julian Davies, “Resistance redux. Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind,” EMBO reports 9, S1, S18–S21 (2008), pg. http://www.nature.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor200869.html
	40	+For many years, antibiotic-resistant pathogens have been recognized as one of the main threats to human survival, as some experts predict a return to the pre-antibiotic era. So far, national efforts to exert strict control over the use of antibiotics have had limited success and it is not yet possible to achieve worldwide concerted action to reduce the growing threat of multi-resistant pathogens: there are too many parties involved. Furthermore, the problem has not yet really arrived on the radar screen of many physicians and clinicians, as antimicrobials still work most of the time—apart from the occasional news headline that yet another nasty superbug has emerged in the local hospital. Legislating the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic applications and curtailing general public access to them is conceivable, but legislating the medical profession is an entirely different matter.
	41	+In order to meet the growing problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the discovery and development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments for infectious diseases, together with tools for rapid diagnosis that will ensure effective and appropriate use of existing antibiotics, are imperative. How the health services, pharmaceutical industry and academia respond in the coming years will determine the future of treating infectious diseases. This challenge is not to be underestimated: microbes are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human race.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-19 19:41:53.129

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Chris Castillo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dulles AW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+11

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC - Faithless ElectorsTPP CP DAs

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Glenbrooks