WODC Round 3 - Economy

Kritik Zaradi has quite literally conceded the kritik, he agrees that silence is compliance and nowithstanding has conceded: theViolation, My Links, Voters, Alternatives, the Impact, and even the permutation at this point. As the individual with full burden of proof, it is Pro’s job to answer every single ‘round-determining’ argument proposed by con. This means that even if every single one of his link arguments are truly correct, he still loses because he has conceded my two link arguments that prove he actually does link. He hasn’t put up an even microscopic effort to refute them. It is Zaradi’s prerogative, it would seem, to simply blow off the entire kritik, and get by it with much less than minimal effort, its lazy debating, as simple as that...even one correct link argument of mine means I link because proLink Zaradi’s first reason for No link: His logic: 1.) Harms coming from 100% globalization don’t link 2.) The K argues that “just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism” 3.) The plan only increases globalization a little bit 4.) Thus the harms coming from globalization in the kritik do not link to the plan. I extend my argument that his logic is missing a warrant; Jayan Nayar’s kritik never argues that just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism, nor a NWO. Furthermore this argument doesn’t determine whether the K links, at most this is an impact-linkage argument, but don’t consider this argument either, I have already argued, in the “Keep in Mind” section of R3, that the impacts of globalization are irrelevant to whether or not we reject the plan. We reject the plan if the plan globalizes because any instance of globalization, just like any instance of racism, is bad. If, by chance, Zaradi meant; that the Kritik never argues every instance of globalization must use the ideology of neocolonialism then this has effectively been conceded in my link argument ‘b’ where it states: “Any position that says the process of globalization will help anybody except the ‘globalizer’ (as pro must) is wrong because globalization inherently suppresses and dehumanizes those being globalized and intentionally or unintentionally operates using the ideologies of neocolonialism.” …That’s the entire point of the K…It wouldn’t be a K if it didn’t apply in every instance. Zaradi’s second No-Link: Yes, I ‘conceded’ the K doesn’t link by pointing out that Zaradi isn’t topical, so then I guess Zaradi has just conceded his Non-topicality….Even if the plan is topical, he still links because he has conceded the substance of the K, and the ‘b’ link argument, both of which argue that any instance of globalization is bad, and should thusly be rejected. If he globalizes he has effectively been K-ed and loses, if he doesn’t globalize he isn’t topical and loses. Zaradi’s third No-Link: The K got the thumbs up from both tejretics and Raisor so I’m sure it can’t be that bad. In all reality, Zaradi is the one who hasn’t taken the time to understand the kritik, not me. And he has conceded the entire thing. This isn’t a link argument, this is an attempt to discredit the K for pro’s lack of effort. The point remains, he can’t know that he isn’t using one if he doesn’t even know what it is. It’s clear what a WOP is though, from context and things I have directly said…. I have said that a World Order is “a single unitary structure” of the world, it has been described as an “ideal/single world”. Thus it should be pretty clear that a world ordering process is just any process which attempts to create/design this single and so called ‘better’ unitary structure/order of the world. The reasons this is bad are warranted extensively through the Kritik, but the key point is that any process which unifies the world into a single structure, and does so in order to try and benefit those being included in this structure is bad, pro literally must do this if he presents a plan because he must use globalization and he must benefit people outside of it by bringing them into it.Topicality Topicality‘b’ definition -On the ‘b’ definition, even if you buy his ridiculous interpretation of the resolution, Zaradi ignores my R2 demands to justify the words “interaction” and “investment”, yet he doesn’t even attempt to say his plan uses them and ignores my arguments that he does neither; as I have argued, the definition doesn’t include the word ‘or’, thus the entire definition must be met, which includes those words. Not justifying these words, in spite of argumentation to the contrary, should be considered as a concession of the words which means he doesn’t meet. -Furthermore, his ‘b’ interpretation, on the other words doesn’t take into account that we are talking about “economic globalization”, not globalization in general. Thus I requested for him to prove his plan increases the economy size, and this was also never responded to in any form or fashion…aka conceded, meaning he doesn’t meet. ‘a’ definition Zaradi doesn’t even try to meet this definition. Being that both definitions must be met, he clearly isn’t topical; extend my arguments that he doesn’t develop the economy or increase free trade or tap cheaper foreign labor markets. Both definitions must be met Pro has responded to this by simply not responding to this. His Only reason that he shouldn’t have to be responsible for the first definition is that ‘he didn’t know’…however, a reasonable person would clearly know, and objectivity is on my side. The format proves this to be true. The definitions take the exact same format for every word: bolded word, semicolon, definition of that bolded word. -It says “Globalize AND Globalization”, look back to the definition of “and”: “also, at the same time”[5] / ”along or together with; as well as”[5]…..I could have put 1 definition for ‘g & g’ or I could have put 3 definitions for ‘g & g’, the number of definitions is irrelevant. Ultimately, the header objectively means we are defining both words, and definitions ‘a’ and ‘b’ are simply definitionsfor both of those words. Again, if they were separate words they would have different headers. -Just think about it, I would have said ‘g&g’ ‘respectively’, or ‘inversely’, which would indicate which definition coincides with which. If the judges aren’t believing what I have already said, then they still can’t go Zaradi’s way because they have no way to tell which word (g or g) coincides with which definition (a or b). It could easily be that globalize was ‘b’ and globalization was ‘a’, there is no way to know which one, meaning you prefer both. -Finally, just take a look at the origin of my sources, ‘a’ comes from the merriam webster dictionary, defining “globalization”. ‘b’ comes from comes from “Globalization101.com” and defines globalization. No matter what, they both define globalization, these are the objective facts here. How can anyone justify saying that the first definition of globalization really meant globalize. So one last time, giving aid is in no way economic globalization, this is common sense. The Plan Pro has added something new to his plan, in the last round. It has now been ‘clarified’, that pro’s plan forces the UN to infringe on Brazilian sovereignty and enforce his plan because of ‘international law’. This was never in the first speech, in round 3 he said that it was possible to do this but he never said that he *was* doing this, as a part of his plan. The voters should disregard anything said outside of the initial, round 2, speech introducing the plan. Pro is changing his plan from giving economic aid to literally forcing Brazil to cooperate with international law. This was never argued. Pro’s plan is nothing but a moving target at this point, changing his plan late in the round in order counteract my counterplan and make his seem better in general. We know almost nothing about how his plan works, what it does, nor how effectively it will do it. Pro is spending an unknown amount of money and giving it to an organization who’s function and power is also unknown. We don’t know where the money will go, we don’t even know where it *might* go. Pro is just giving us his thumbs up that it will work. I have requested solvency evidence that the global community would or could do the plan and have received none. It is not my job to prove that pro cannot do the plan. It is pro’s job to prove that he can. We should assume that the CCYP is an ineffectual organization, with a limited reach. We should assume that the costs will be gargantuan and that the international community cannot do the plan. These have been specifically requested and in every instance blown off. Literally, the only thing we know that will happen for sure, is that an amount of money will be transferred from the pockets of the global community to this organization called the CCPY, that’s it. Counterplan International fiat doesn’t mean you fiat a foreign country, it means you fiat more than one country. It isn’t called ‘foreign fiat’, its fiat between nations, Inter-nation-al. Judges, all of his responses to international-fiat are against a different argument than the one I posed. Prefer the CP because it doesn't use international fiat, doesn't globalize, and more effectively solves by fixing the root of the problem, Brazilian gov. -The K links because my two link arguments are flatly conceded, zaradi must win every single link argument because of his burden of proof. And, Pro concedes that globalization is inherently bad in the violation and link sections of the K. -Zaradi has never argued about benefiting culture, just people. BOP thus unfulfilled -Foreign aid isn't economic globalization. The sources are for globalization. The format implies 'a' AND 'b'. Even if you disagree with me, there is no way for a judge to know which definition would corespond to which. Pro doesn't meet words in 'b' anyways. -international fiat not argued against -The plan is an obscurity. The CP solves the root problem, is explicit and no international fiat.