WODC Round 3 - Economy

Observation One - Because of the words "more globalized" in the resolution, there's nothing within the resolution that mandates I advocate for complete globalization. Harms coming out of 100% or infinite globalization don't link to the affirmative. Observation Two - Plans. Debaters ought to advance policy options derived from the resolution to determine the winner. This is because:a) Plans require both sides to weigh impacts, whereas truth testing encourages semantic tautology. Also, truth-testing eliminates impact turns because debaters don't have to defend their side as good or bad. This is not educational since debaters must engage the substance of each other's positions. b) Plans keep me from shifting ground and expanding my advocacy to coopt negative harms - my specificity leaves no room for vagueness.c) Plans explode negative counterplan ground since they have literally everything that isn't the plan, whereas the resolution will always be more broad. d) Plans inherently mean going more in-depth on topic issues which allow for more nuanced argumnents and thus more educational experience. e) Textuality: 1. The resolution asks whether or not a "more globalized" economy is better rather than a "globalized" economy, meaning that if I can show one instance where globalization is desireable then you affirm. 2. Tools are only used to achieve a particular purpose, rather than be useful categorically. For example, I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth. I only use a hammer when I need to hit nails. So the aff can specify in which instance globalization should be beneficial. Framework - Epistemology Moral uncertainty should lead us to default towards preserving humanity as a meta-constraint on all ethical theories. Bostrom[1]: "there is a great option value in preserving ... our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity ... is ... the best way ... to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value ..." And epistemology requires us to act in a way that minimizes negative existential risks. Bostrom continues[1]: "if something is not known to be objectively safe, then it is risky ... we may be uncertain about whether or not X would really be bad. But we can say that if we are not sure whether or not X would really be bad (but we are sure that X would not be good), then X is bad in ... the subjective sense relevant to decision making ... we have reason to prefer that X not occur ..." Moral considerations must be based in physical facts about our mental states because the universe is causally closed. Papineau[2]: "the conservation of energy does imply that ... if mental or vital forces arose spontaneousrly, then there would be nothing to ensure that they never led to energy increases ... Detailed physiological research ... gave no indication of any physical effects that cannot be explained in terms of basic physical forces that also occur outside living bodies ... since the only laws governing behavior are those connecting behavior with physical antecedents, mental events can only be causes of behavior if they are identical with those physical antecedents." This means utilitarianism because there are no side-constraints to nature -- suffering is a mental state which we have a reason to avoid. Even respect for the rationality of persons mandates util. Cummiskey[3]: "If I sacrifice some for the sake of others ... I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have ... unconditional ... worth ... but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others ... The concept of the end-in-itself thus ... dictates that one may sacrifice some to save many." Thus, the method that ought to be followed to achieve a moral moral society is the minimization of suffering. Thus, the plan text: The global community will provided economic aid to the CCPY in aiding the Yanomami tribe in South America. I reserve the right to clarify. I only defend globalization in this one instance. Thus, the negative needs to run arguments with harms specific to the Yanomami tribe. Any negative harms stemming out of generalized globalization or globalization in cases that are not related to the Yanomami tribe do not apply to the plan. And, the plan fits his definition of globalization. A "process of interaction among people and governments" is entirely relevant to the topic of the Yanomami, and it's entirely driven by investment and information technology as without it the CCPY would be unable to do anything. Don't let him say that the plan isn't resolutional or topical, I meet his own definitions. The Yanomami tribe is estimated to be the largest relatively isolated tribe, numbering roughly 32,000 total people, in South America, occupying the rainforests and mountains of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela[4]. In 1987-1990, 15% of the population of Yanomami died from violence, malnutrition brought on by poisoned rivers the tribe rely on to fish, and epidemics of malaria and other illnesses brought on by garimpeiros, or small time gold miners[4][5]. Actions were taken to protect the tribe in 1992, including the demarcation of their territory and bombing of illegal airstrips used to supply the miners. The project was eventually halted due to a lack of funding, however, and miners quickly reoccupied their territory[5].The miners have a catastrophic effect on Yanomami life. Their mining operations pollute local rivers with deadly levels of mercury, which kill off fish that the tribe relies on to feed their people and contaminates water supplies. Research conducted in 2013 showed that 92% of indigenous women in the region had levels of mercury contamination that exceeded the internationally accepted limit[6].Moreover, there exists within Yanomami society a sect of uncontacted Yanomami, referred to as the Moxateteu[4]. The Moxateteu are believed to reside in an area of Yanomami territory that is most densely populated with miners, with mining camps being as close to fifteen kilometers from Moxateteu villages[7]. Contact from the miners with the Moxateteu, who have absolutely zero immunities to diseases that the miners would carry, would be catastrophic.Miners also presesnt a violent and unique threat to the very infrastructure of the Yanomami tribe. In 1993, miners entered the village of Haximu and left only aftere 16 Yanomami had died[4]. A brazillian court sentenced them to genocide, however only 2 of the five miners sentenced are serving jail time. As Davi Kopenawa, a Yanomami shaman and spokesperson for the tribe, explained it, "the same gold prospectors who killed the Haximu ... came back."[8]. The Yanomami tribe have been exposed to attacks from miners for years now and the Brazillian and Venezuelan governments do nothing to prevent it[4].Moreover, the miners have escalated from attacks on villages to plan assassinations. Davi Kopenawa, who is referred to as the "Dalai Lama of the Rainforest" by the international community, has received death threats from the groups of miners, and armed bikers have raided ISA offices looking for Davi[9]. This is not the first time these threats have been made and executed, either. Stephen Corry explained that "These are not empty threats - indigenous activists are frequently assassinated for resisting the destruction of their land. Davi Yanomami's life is in danger."[9]. CIMI, a Brazillian CMO, reported that over 600 indigenous people have been assassinated in Brazil over the past 11 years, and nearly half of those assassinations were targeted at environmental defenders[9].Three reasons to believe that globalized action will benefit the Yanomami tribe.First, there's already been success stories. Illegal cattle ranching was a massive problem for the Yanomami tribe as ranchers would clear away forests for grazing pastures, which destroys the land they use for farming, since farming gives the tribe 80% of their food supply[4]. But as of last month, the tribe celebrated the removal of the last illegal rancher from Yanomami territory[10].Second, international law recognizes Yanomami sovereignty. Brazil signed the International Labour ORganization Convention 169 [11]. which guarantees the rights for tribal people to own the land they live on and make decisions about projects that affect the land. All it takes is global support and enforcement to end the problem permanently. Third, don't buy any responses that say that the international community wouldn't bother doing anything for the Yanomami people because the international community has already condemned the actions of the miners. The UN expressed it's concern over the actions of the miners and demanded that the governments punish those who have commited crimes against the Yanomami people[12].Sources:[1] - Nick Bostrom (Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School University of Oxford). “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy 2012.[2] - David Papineau, “Naturalism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.[3] - Cummiskey, David. Kantian Consequentialism. Published by Oxford University Press. 1996. (p.142) [4] - http://tinyurl.com...[5] - http://tinyurl.com...[6] - http://tinyurl.com...[7] - http://tinyurl.com...;[8] - http://tinyurl.com...[9] - http://tinyurl.com...[10 - http://tinyurl.com...[11] - http://tinyurl.com...[12] - http://tinyurl.com...