WODC Round 3 - Economy

Overview of the debate: The way con structures his neg case is that he places the BoP on me and effectively all-ins on disproving/disallowing the plan. The only kinds of offensive arguments he runs are the K and the CP. The rest of his arguments are defensive arguments (they aim to make me not win rather than make him win). And if we abide by his observation about no new offensive case arguments this round then he doesn't have a way to generate any more offense than what he could have right now (I.e. The K and the CP). This means that if the debate is close you should presume aff because I'm the one making 100% offensive arguments, thus doing the most work toward fulfilling the BOP. On Why I can’t run a plan: Extend the five reasons, including the two sub-reasons coming from the texts of the resolution, for why I ought to be allowed to run a plan. Con never responds to a single one of them. His reason is that he didn’t agree to debate about the Yanomami and he thought he was debating the resolution, but a) refer to the two sub-reasons I give coming from the specific text of the resolution for why I ought to be allowed to run a Plan, and b) this argument relies on him winning the plan is non-topical anyway, which he hasn’t done yet. On Topicality of the Plan: Extend the reasons for why I meet his definition of globalization (i.e. the B definition). He says that I have to meet both definitions a and b but a) he’s defining two different words here (globalize and globalization, as his own set-up shows), and b) he never makes this warrant. So long as I meet one definition, I meet the definition. He also says that how I meet the definition is ridiculous and that anything could be defined as globalization in that sense, but that’s his own damn fault for using that definition LOL. There’s plenty of interaction between people (Yanomami), companies (miners and Pro-Yanomami groups), and governments (Brazil, Venezuela, the international community) that’s driven by trade (the mining as well as Yanomami’s efforts to reach the rest of the world and the book written by Davi that’s being sold[13]) that’s aided by information technology. I meet. So the plan’s topical, you have no reason to a priori reject it. On the K: First, I don’t link to the K. Extend observation one where I say that the harms from extreme amounts of globalizing don’t link to the affirmative. I’m not talking about setting up a NWO here. He never warrants why just one instance of globalization merits neocolonialism, and until he does I don’t link. Second, I don’t link again. The entire point of the plan is to help secure the Yanomami their own life and strengthen them as their own unique, individual people by giving them their own borders and land that they themselves own. I’m not doing anything that the K says I’m doing. Third, I don’t link again. I’m not using globalization as a “world ordering process” or whatever the f*ck that is. Con doesn’t even explain what a world ordering process is. All I’m trying to do is help out the Yanomami. Fourth, perm - Affirm, then do the K. I’m “thinking locally” as his alternative puts it by focusing only on the Yanomami. Everything else can be as un-globalized as Con wants it to be. So long as we do the plan and affirm every other situation can follow the K and be un-globalized. On International Fiat:First, language barriers aren't a thing: the Yanomami speak Portuguese, and translators exist in the status quo. Moreover, there's no "western bias" coming from the lit I cited. If anything it has a "pro-yanomami" bias, but that's not con's issue. Second is non-sensual. If this were true the concept behind the UN or any kind of international summit or conglomeration wouldn't exist. There are international actors who can act on the plan. Third, no where in the plan do I call for every single nation on the face of the earth to do the plan. Con's being over-dramatic. There's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to look internationally. My plan doesn't harm fairness. On Irony: I don't see the irony. The road was built without the consent of the Yanomami, meaning it was the exact opposite of what the plan advocates. And even if he's trying to say that this is what globalization would entail, a) he's not warranting that that's what Globalization has to be, and b) even if he is warranting it, it's the is/ought fallacy - just because people are globalizing that way it doesn't mean they ought to do it that way. On Other Issues: First, it's unfair of my opponent to say that I'm being too vague by not saying how much we should give and what it goes to then say that I'm actually not allowed to say that. Moreover, a specific figure isn't necessary: all we need is enough to solve the problems and convince Brazil and Venezuela to actually abide by the laws they signed. Any more than necessary is, well, unnecessary. If con wants to try and argue that the amount we would have to give wouldn't be reasonable he's welcome to try and come up with a figure himself, but that's not what he's doing here. The CCPY is the Pro-Yanomami Commision, which you can learn from almost any one of the sources I cited. And there's nothing vague about the plan. What the plan's trying to solve is pretty clearly stated through the negative impacts of the illegal mining (river contamination, disease, violence, death threats/assassinations, etc.). I do provide solvency. Extend the second reason why the plan benefits. Because Brazil signed ILO 169 they've already recognized Yanomami land as the property of the Yanomami. They're not enforcing the international law, though, so the international community *can* step in and make them take action. And extend the third reason. The UN has already condemned the miners and vocalized support for the Yanomami. There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the plan. And the plan isn't superfluous. All the harms happening in the status quo are happening while that's running. It's clearly not doing enough. Only through international action can the plan be achieved and Brazil be forced to actually abide by the law. And there's no warrant for how I don't solve for the harms, it's literally him just saying I don't and crossing his fingers hoping it sticks. Forcing Brazil to adhere to ILO 169 means that the Yanomami have the final say in whatever happens on their territory, meaning that the mining and diseases and river contamination stops. My plan solves for 100% of the harms. On the Counterplan: The Counterplan is literally my plan except Brazil is the actor instead of the international community. The problem with the Counterplan is that it doesn't solve because Brazil has shown they have no intention of doing anything about it. Look to the unenforced international laws they agreed to abide by and the miners who slaughtered 16 Yanomami villagers and only five of the entire group were tried, and of those five only three were ever given prison time. The rest got off and went back to doing the exact same thing. Brazil is incompetent at best, unwilling at worst. Only the international community can solve, which means the Counterplan fails. So so far the round breaks down really simply: My plan stands, is topical, and I’m allowed to run it. The K doesn’t link, and even if it does we should do the K in every other situation that isn’t the plan I’m running. We can excuse this one instance for the benefit of the Yanomami. The counterplan is literally the same thing as my plan, except it’s being implimented by Brazil rather than the international community, which means the counterplan is never going to happen. Sources: [13] - http://www.survivalinternational.org...