The South Korean government should establish an AIDS colony on the island of Yeonpyeong

Thanks for the prompt response brian. ==Defending my case== ---The South Korean viewpoint--- C1) South Korea has more important worries This goes un-refuted. On the verge of war with North Korea, South Korea does not have the resources right now to forcibly remove all the residents of Yeonpyeong, build a prison camp, and then capture 9,300 HIV positive men who will not want to be found. South Korea needs to focus all of its attention on its military readiness. The police action to capture 9,300 citizens would be an incredible distraction at the worst possible time. And there's no possible way it would be 100% successful. South Korea should focus its entire military, police, and political attention on the military threat from North Korea. C2) Human Rights Abuses *My opponent argues that South Korea did not protest American rights abuses in Iraq/Guantanamo* There was actually a massive protest of the Iraq War in South Korea. [1] There were a number of attacks on U.S. troops in South Korea during this time period because of anti-American sentiment. The U.S. has threatened sanctions against China many times in the recent past to combat human rights abuses. [2] The international community would force the U.S. to decrease engagement in South Korea if South Korea abused human rights. This would hurt South Korea's war-fighting ability and strained relations with the U.S. would decrease deterrence against a North Korean invasion. *My opponent argues that North Korea is a threat and the U.S. would not let human rights abuses threaten our national security* South Korea is not vital to U.S. national security. We are defended against North Korean nuclear weapons because 1) North Korea has yet to build a missile that can make it past Japan in test flights and 2) we have our own nuclear deterrent; a North Korean nuclear attack on U.S. soil would result in massive retaliation. Lastly, we could remove troops from South Korea and still defend our interests in the region using our troops in Japan. South Korea needs us far more than we need them. *My opponent argues that South Korea will spin the imprisonment as "quarantined in a treatment facility"* People aren't stupid and can see through this farce. When you imprison an HIV positive person for life, that isn't treatment and it's not quarantine. Quarantines are temporary. With Avian Flu, you confine and treat people with the disease until the epidemic passes. My opponent is proposing life imprisonment of HIV positive men, in the absence of an epidemic. HIV in South Korea hardly reaches epidemic proportion – according to my opponent's original source, less than 0.1% of South Korea's population has HIV. *My opponent argues that it's fair to only lock up men because only men transmit the disease* My opponent's own Center for Disease Control evidence (that he cites for this point) disproves this: "Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through vaginal sex. In fact, it is the most common way the virus is transmitted in much of the world. HIV can be found in the blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum) or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus." My opponent completely unfairly discriminates against men. C3) Unnecessary *My opponent says there is no cure* Experts at the University of Southern California have developed a cure for HIV using genes from mice that are immune to the disease. [3] Science Daily describes another cure that works by killing all host cells infected with the disease. [4] According to a study published on November 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine, a new drug is available that prevents a person from contracting HIV with 90% effectiveness. [5] My opponent never answers my analysis that because of anti-retroviral drugs, HIV is no longer a death sentence. In addition, condoms can prevent transmission. There's no logical reason why HIV should be treated so drastically differently from other STDs, like Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes. C4) Better enforcement *My opponent says we should remove people with HIV much as we'd remove a gun from a mentally deranged psychopath* In the U.S., the mentally ill cannot buy firearms because they do not have the mental capacity to deal with such a deadly weapon. HIV positive people, in contrast, do have the mental capacity to prevent transmission to their sexual partners. The following would solve most of the problem: make knowing transmission of HIV a crime tantamount to murder and knowing unprotected sex while having HIV (if transmission luckily fails) would be tantamount to attempted murder. *My opponent says the sufferer was "asking for it" if having unprotected sex* This sounds similar to Bill O'Reilly's claim that women who are out at night, drunk, and dressed provocatively are "asking for" rape. If the perpetrator knowingly transmits HIV, the perpetrator of the crime is the one who is guilty. C5) Turn – fewer people will get tested *My opponent argues people would not forgo physicals* Physicals do not involve an STD test. If the State mandated that each physical include an STD test, people would wise up and refuse to get physicals as well. People would be willing to risk their health if it meant avoiding a life sentence in prison. Extend my argument that out of fear of arrest, fewer people would get tested for HIV. Less HIV testing would result in fewer people who know they're infected, and thus, HIV will be spread more easily throughout South Korean society. "Get tested" campaigns have been credited with decreased transmission rates. This turns my opponent's entire case. If his policy increases HIV transmission rates, it is entirely counter-productive to its stated mission. This is a reason alone to vote Con. === For all the above reasons, South Korea would be worse off if it implemented my opponent's plan, hurting the war effort and increasing HIV transmission. === ---Objective morality--- *My opponent says a minority may be sacrificed for the good of a majority* This logic justifies the Holocaust. Anything that says the Holocaust is okay cannot be a good moral system. *My opponent says that's why we incarcerate criminals* Criminals are incarcerated for violating someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. They are imprisoned for breaking the Kantian Categorical Imperative. The HIV positive have not violated anyone else's rights, unless they knowingly and purposely transmit the disease to someone. *Mentally ill* We don't forcibly imprison the mentally ill anymore in the U.S. since "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" publicized the atrocities of forced institutionalization. *Quarantine* Quarantines are temporary, so they don't violate the right to life or liberty. My opponent proposes life imprisonment for those with HIV. His policy is morally equivalent to proposing that during an epidemic, any infected people should be shot on sight. Extend my argument that the HIV positive still have a right to life and liberty and may not be used as a means to an end. My opponent does not challenge Kantian morality directly, so he does not contest the fact that people cannot be used as a means to an end. *My opponent says local inhabitants can stay* Yeonpyeong is a small island with 1600 local inhabitants. He cites no evidence that it could accommodate 9300 more, and it is extremely doubtful that it could accommodate all the local residents in addition to 9300 HIV positive men, should all the inhabitants decide to stay. My opponent is also changing his original advocacy, which is unsportsmanlike. I believe his policy still violates the locals' right to property (according to Locke). Because his policy is immoral, you should vote Con. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...