WODC Round 3 - Economy

BOP rounds…ect Under the round proposal I suggest, the burden of proof would be shared, we would both show the likely outcome of globalization. Under Zaradi’s plan text the burden of proof should be on him, because he has to prove his plan is sufficient, I only have to proof it would have a neutral or negative effect. It was mandated that in the last round no new arguments can be made, however I would also insist that R3 not have new arguments and only be for rebuttal, in this way we preserve fairness because we can’t make arguments the other side can’t respond to in R3……..I similarly accept utilitarianism however I do not concede to his arguments. Pro can’t advocate a plan Look at any debate on either DDO or ED8(including WODC), you will not see a match where the resolution is reinterpreted into a sub-resolution and if it is, it will have been stated in the rules. Zaradi has effectively turned this into a policy/parliamentary debate, but I never agreed to participate in either of those during this tournament. I thought this would be like any other debate on this website, which means we debate the res given at the top of the screen. So Zaradi has argued an entirely different resolution than the one I agreed to debate. Don’t let him say this is unfair, because he knew full and well this was my position since R1. The plan should be rejected, meaning BOP goes unfulfilled. Zaradi shouldn’t be able to make new arguments next round but I will agree to it if he wishes to remove his plan. If he can, plan still Non-Topical Giving aid is in no way economic globalization or globalization in general. Pro fails to meet the ‘a’ definition entirely, because it doesn’t develop the economy or increase free trade or tap cheaper foreign labor markets. Pro’s ‘b’ interpretation is ridiculous, almost anything could be defined as ‘an interaction between people and the government’, that is only one characteristic of the definition, it has to meet all characteristics of the definition (b and a, but pro doesn’t even fit b). Pro doesn’t include companies or investment, at all. Topicality is a priori, we have to decide the plan is even allowed before we evaluate it. If Topical, K: Global/Local Kritik On World Ordering K quotes are from [1] Violation Pro uses globalization which is a world ordering process. By their very nature world orderings are a perpetuation of modern colonialism and imperialism. The reason we strive for a single Word Order is because it appeals to what seems like the natural path of human evolution, a common destiny which is inherently good. This perception of world order applies to what is called ‘evolutionary’ or ‘natural’ order, wherein the achievement of a world order happens through the ‘neutral’ and ‘mechanical’ process of mixing diversity into a single unitary structure. However the flip side of order as structure is order as command, or coercive order. (In this light, order is presented in opposition to the undesired condition of disorder.) What we find is that the ideal of an ordered world is justified on the process and results of natural ordering, however attempts to create the ideal/single world function as coercive ordering, order as command. Yet any elements of coercive ordering nullify the vision of a world-order through natural ordering. Surely “the ‘world’ of ‘world-order’ has not come to be without the necessary ordering of many worlds. The ordering and the ordered, the world of order and the ordered world” “The very idea of ‘one world’ contains the necessary impetus for the absorption, assimilation, if not destruction, of existing worlds and the genocide of existing socialities.” What people are blind to is that our world order narratives and ideologies, carried out through globalization, are the exact same as what resulted in colonialism. And from these underlying ideals “an important feature of ordering prevails. The world of those who "order" is the destruction of the ‘worlds’ of those ordered.” Link a.) “ ‘Freed’ from the brutalities of the order of historical colonialism, the ‘ordered’ now are subjected to the colonizing force of the ‘post-colonial,’ and globalization-inspired ideologies of development and security. Visible, still, is the legitimization of ‘order’ as coercive command through the rhetoric of "order" as evolutionary structure.” b.) The primary link here is simply the case/resolution itself. 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. It inherently destroys diversity and thus cultures (which clearly is not a net benefit to them). Impacts a.) The propagation of ecocide, world hunger, and the destruction of social diversity. Other impacts include humanitarian crimes, such as the gold mining pro cites, and other violations of rights. For instance the World Bank alone has relocated some 3.4 million poor people, most without compensation, some being killed, raped, and brutalized along their way. b.) The loss of “indigenous conceptions of human dignity, of subsistence, production, consumption, wealth and poverty”, and the inception “of the human ‘self’ as an objective ‘economic’ agent and, with it, the universals of commodification as the basis for human relations” Voters Issue and a priori a.) Questions of methodology and epistemology must be evaluated before consequentialist impacts. Since pro is operating under the assumption that globalization is good, deciding whether or not it is a good assumption to have in the first place is necessary. This is true in both interpretations of the resolution. b.) The k is the only thing in the round that is actually real. Fiat is imaginary and will not impact our real lives, however a change in the perspective of the voter will/may result in an actual change in the world. Another way this is the only real thing in the debate is because pro is actually endorsing globalization, it is a real thing that is actually happening. “We should talk about what really happened before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.”[2] Alternative a.) Don’t globalize. b.) Power exists only in relationships, for instance, a government exist solely because the people in it recognize their subservience to it and place within it; without those relationships it would cease to exist. Coercive order attempts to forcefully change relationships of others to achieve ‘our’ vision of the one world order, and in doing so does just the opposite. In truth we have little or no control over what happens to the people ‘out there’, and the global ‘place’ of ‘out there’ is not really a place at all, it’s an abstraction, an idea. The only place that you can truly exist in, is the world of here and now, your ‘I-world’. Thus the only relationships we can truly change are our own personal relationships, if everyone changed the relationships they know, the world as a whole would have to change, and it would do so, then, through neutral rather than coercive ordering, it would happen Naturally. The Natural world order we want can never be ‘achieved’ but discovered. We must think local, as opposed to global. If not K, Direct arguments Disallow International fiat a.) Language barriers prevent adequate discussion—the most in-depth education literature on the plan isn’t in English. At best, the literature represents a biased view of the policy, written from the viewpoint of the west. b.) False judicial dichotomy—no actor faces deciding whether one nation or another should do a policy. The plan sets up a false role for the judge c.) You can solve almost any problem if you literally control the entire world, meaning con is put into a severely unfair position, instead of debating facts on a fair terrain, pro can use his plan to fiat his solvency. Furthermore this is unrealistic, when has every country contributed to such a relatively minor cause. d.) Voters issue, international fiat should be disallowed and thus the plan shouldn’t be allowed, and the plan damages fairness. Irony The ironic part of Pro’s plan is that the harms he is trying to solve for are a direct result of economic globalization, fixing globalization problems through (what he thinks is) globalization? “This project began in the late 1970s….Brazil received money from the World Bank to build a road through their territory….Road workers brought malaria and many Yanomami died because they had no resistance…The road provided access for miners and loggers to reach Yanomami territory for the first time, bringing pollution and damaging the delicate ecosystem that fed the Yanomami and provided them with medicines. For many Yanomami women, prostitution became a way to avoid starvation but often left them sick and abused.”[3] Other Issues- The plan is vague: we aren't told how much money we are giving or to what ends it will be used. Pro shouldn't be able to dictate what its used for since it goes to another actor. We aren't even told what the 'CCPY' is. You shouldn't vote for a vague plan.-Pro hasn't given solvency evidence that states the international community would or could do the plan, he has BOP.-There are already other groups who support the Yanomami cause financially and through training, the plan is superflous.[4]-Pro doesn't solve for mining or illnesses, or river polution. If not direct arguments, CounterplanCP text: Brazil will make Yanomami territory a nationally protected area, restrict mining that might damage or pollute their envoronment, and prosecuate violators. We give Companies time to leave, then implement. Citations [1] SYMPOSIUM: RE-FRAMING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: Orders of Inhumanity, 1999, by Jayan Nayar, Professor of Law, Warwik University [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...[4]http://tinyurl.com... -TJVN