Resolved: This house would hold authors responsible for offending readers

This topic is a parliamentary policy resolution, and requires the Pro, or affirmative side; frequently called in parliamentary debate, "The Government" to define the terms of the resolution to provide agency for the policy or "plan" proposed to meet the need or, "significant harms" cited in the case below. The "Opposition" or, "Opp/Neg/Con" benefits from the bias for, "burden of proof" upon the "Gov/Aff/Pro," provided they (Opp) offer arguments both unique and contrary to the "Gov/Aff/Pro" policy offered. To win the debate the "Pro/Aff/Gov" must demonstrate that the proposed policy or "plan," "solves for," or fixes the "harms" or problem(s) the resolution addresses. The "Opp/Neg/Con" must show that the proposed policy does not solve for/fix the harms/problems raised by the resolution. The Government offers the following definitions for this debate: This House" "Big Five" publishers; Penguin/Random House, Hachette, Macillan, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster Offending: Aggravating or antagonizing a person or people group with racist rhetoric and/or publicity. Case: Inherency: Financial motives trump ethics in business decisions. Plan will put ethics above profits when an author is demonstrably racist. Significance: Regardless of perception, we don't yet live in a post-racism society. Moreover, the inaccurate perception that we do, often allows for ignoring the ways in which racism remains prevalent. Racist vitriol has been on the increase in the United States, especially in certain political circles when the cameras are rolling. The plan will put ethics at a premium to profits when racism is part of the specific example the case deals with, and better track society toward "post-racism" Harms: The harms of racism are robustly established. This resolution deals with the harms of failing to penalize authors that publish and/or express racist rhetoric within the status quo. Harms 1: The status quo further entrenches racism: failure to punish racism makes it more acceptable and and commonplace. These "house" members are in a unique position to curtail racism in our marketplace by terminating contracting authors that demonstrate racism in print or otherwise. Harms 2: Reduced public image and credibility: failure to punish bigotry to the extent that "house: members can, damages the company image(s) of those house members. It also reduces the credibility of the enterprise(s) in addressing issues that deal with race in any form or magnitude. Harms 3: Opportunity loss and general liability: Tolerance of racism on the part of the contracted authors in business with "house" members; by house members, constitutes safe haven for the attitudes of those contractees. This necessarily exposes the house members to opportunity loss in form of talent, customers/sales, retail business relationships and connectivity with audiences and the journalistic world. Solvency: Plan: Publishers will terminate contracts with and recall published product by contracted/consigned authors that have expressed or published racist views, material or vitriol in print or otherwise. How plan addresses significance[of the topic]: The plan moves society towards actual "post-racism." Reducing the overall acceptance of racist rhetoric elevates the standard of public dialogue and public standards in general. How plan solves for Harms 1: cross apply how plan addresses the significance of the topic. How plan solves for Harms 2: By terminating business relationship(s) with authors that damage the reputation and credibility of house members, they will be able to better protect and preserve credibility of overall published content and the public image of the company. How plan solves for Harms 3: Reduced liability and opportunity loss; plan reduces the risk of house members being drawn into legal battles over the espoused views of a consigned author. Plan also reduces or eliminates risk of opportunity loss that is wedded to transacting business with publicly racist business partners. Off-Case Advantages: Ad 1: Increased sales and profits via increased inclusion: By improving/protecting public image of house members through policies that reject racism businesses include more potential customers that will buy their goods/services. There will be less consumers, "voting with their feet" against house members in the marketplace at large. Ad 2: Increased talent and partnership via increased inclusion: By improving/protecting public image through policies that reject racism businesses include more potential talent for house member companies. There will be fewer potential employees, consigned creative talent and retail partners, "voting with their feet," against house members in the marketplace at large. Ad 3: Marketplace example by putting ethics above profits: By putting ethics ahead of profits house members set a unique example in the marketplace at large. House members benefit from a wealth of increased positive public image and publicity, as well as uniquely positioning themselves to set market conditions and standards. Summary The Gov has provided a resolutional case that identifies needs not currently met within the status quo. The Gov has provided a plan that addresses and solves for the specific harms this resolution addresses, as well as providing unique advantages for, "house members" Having carried the burdens of the topic and provided solvency for significant harms in the status quo, The Pro side urges a ballot in favor of this case, plan and advantages.