LD res

Alright.... This is Always helpful for both sides, so lets see what I can find.... By the Way I LOVE the opening quote..... Value: I have 4 Attacks 1. The Value of "good" or Happiness cannot be quantified, we cannot measure Good as it is subjective and based upon many other factors. Which would create the most 'happiness' giving 1 poor man 100 dollars or giving 10 poor men 10 dollars? 2. Therefore Utility created by an action can only be estimated, and utilitarianism would call on us to act upon assumed, relative consequences. 3. Because of The Theory of Utility Justifies Immoral action, as long as the hoped for Net result of happiness is greater. This was Hitlers Justification for the Holocaust, and even the American Justification for GITMO. In Both cases it was ASSUMED that action would cause the greatest good and the actual end result in the first, is completely contrary and the second cannot be told. 4. Therefore Utilitarianism is an Inadequate value for the round. Criterion: 1. We will not know the end results of such action. While our goal may be success were we to act in every situation to protect human rights, regardless of other consequences , we may in-fact hurt human rights or cause a greater harm than we intended to stop. 2. While some rights may be trans-cultural, many are not. Upholding a westernized conception of human rights would be cultural Imperialism. Such a cultural Imperialism would deny more rights than it protected and would create a sort of Negative Utility. For example, if the United States held Cannibalism to be a Human Rights violation would it be Justified for us to intervene is a Cannibalistic Society and Disrupt cultural tradition. This has been seen to have a Massive Negative Impact. 3. we do not know when we are protecting any rights. By denying rights to some, we may be saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives. The Problem is we cannot tell 4 Protection of rights does not equal utility. The Link between Human Rights and Utility is faulty. If A man is dying, and we do nothing, we are denying no rights, if we take him to the hospital without his consent we are denying his right to personal Autonomy. Which course of action is the most moral? (this example may be bad, but the gist of the argument is rights alone do not create the greatest good) Contention 1 This Contention effectively undermines the position of the affirmative. The Justification for U.S actions at Gitmo was protecting the rights of American citizens. The action was taken by the U.S government, with the goal of Protecting American citizens. Under Affirmative's value and criterion structure this would flow as a moral act. So obviously protecting human rights regardless as the principle goal of government policy is a poor guide for action. AFF is contradicting his own value structure in this contention, proving that trying to protect rights can in fact lead to CAH. 2. The U.S government, has called for the closing of Gitmo however Predident Obama has decided not to investigate torture allegations. The choice here becomes, should be submit and maybe prosecute for abuse at Gitmo and so doing deny the authority of elected officials or should be respect the indirect choice of the people through representatives? We Pride ourselves on Democracy so we should not take power out of the hands of the freely chosen representatives of the people. Contention 2 The U.S does not "turn the other way" we acknowledge faults and end the practice. As I said earlier President Obama has called for a shutdown of Gitmo. The Problem with investigations is even if we proved torture had taken place who would we prosecute? While it may not be the best solution from a retributive stand point it is the best from a Pragmatic and even Utilitarian standpoint. The problem has been stopped, so why continue? Affirmative has failed to show how actions such as this show the U.S turning the other way. Even if we assume that we do "look the other way" who is to say the ICC would be different? 2. The ICC does not have deterrence capabilities, Military Fails to Deter, If we joined the ICC military intervention would be severely limited and we would effectively lower the current deterrence against these crimes. From the Affirmative standpoint we would then have a moral obligation NOT to join. Contention 3 The Problem with this is that many countries instead of seeing us in an improved light will look towards past circumstances and see the court as a new U.S imperialist pawn, this would do nothing to our image and would destroy the court. Joining a court would not suddenly turn around the Image of the U.S, people would have doubts and suspicions of possible second motives, this would actually decrease our image. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried to give good attacks, some may not be entirely true, but remember, If I misinterpreted while reading the contention over and over in round Judges and opponents will misinterpret it as well.... You really need warrants for Contentions 2+3 as well....