WODC Round 3 - Economy

Thanks!PROverview: Response This argument is simply a way to generically say that any time a negative team presents defensive arguments they should be discredited, the round should be decided on merit alone, not percentages of defense or offense. Zaradi has accepted the burden of proof. Pro can’t advocate a plan I concede this argument. An instance where economic globalization increases would represent a ‘more globalized economy’. Notwithstanding, he is completely non-topical. Plan Non-Topical The definition header clearly says ‘globalize AND globalization’, I would have made separate headers if they were different definitions or would have said ‘g & g respectively’. Both definitions must be met; but even if the reader disagrees with me zaradi doesn’t even fit ‘b’. Within the ‘b’ definition they key here is not to try and pick and choose what to fit. It is important to notice the use of ‘and’, in the definition: “a process of interaction and integration”, “companies and governments”, “driven by international trade and investment”. The definition of ‘and’ is “also, at the same time”[5] / ”along or together with; as well as”[5]. Therefore it does not mean ‘either’, but ‘both’...Analogy: my neighbor is having bad luck, he got a divorce and the bank is coming for his house, so I have a plan to gather the neighborhood to give him money…aka global aid. In this analogy we don’t expect anything of equal to or greater monetary value in return, therefore it is not investment or trade, this is zaradi’s plan. His plan doesn’t involve integration, or trade, or companies in the slightest. Furthermore it in no way increases the world economy size. I truly beg the readers to analyze the claims that just because the government is interacting with a people that globalization is happening. Again con doesn’t even touch the ‘a’ definition. Kritik on World Ordering Zaradi concedes the merits and substance of the kritik (aka the violation), that it is a voter’s issue, and all of its impacts. The only part he disagrees with is the link and thus he promotes the perm. I will cover both of those but let me just mention that Zaradi has conceded my a, and b link arguments however made his own reasons for why I don’t link which I will address; being that silence is compliance in debates such as this, has he not already conceded the link by not responding to my link arguments? Link If you have the feeling that Zaradi’s plan doesn’t link into the Kritik that’s because it doesn’t, his plan isn’t even close to globalization-topical so intuitively it shouldn’t seem just right, however, to be clear, any instance of globalization, no matter how small, links to the kritik and its harms. The reason this is the case? The Kritik talks about how coercive ordering, or trying to change non-local relationships, is a result of world ordering ideologies, which ultimately result in our impacts. This response is already warranted within the merits of the kritik, which Zaradi has conceded to. Thus zaradi has already conceded that globalization in any instance links, so if the judge for some reason comes to the conclusion that the Yanomami global initiative is topical then it must link. Once again I extend reason A and B under the R2-header “link” which also prove linkage. His reasons: a.) ‘extreme globalization harms don’t link’…observation one simply asserts this, it is unwarranted and thus means nothing in terms of the debate or the link. The K is concerned with the ideas necessarily underpinning globalization, the impacts of the K are only part of it, the K is about the ideology at hand. b.) ‘I’m not doing anything the K would have me doing’, true, this is because the plan is nontopical. However the K isnt’ about what you are doing, its not about consequentialist impacts, its about the ideas behind globalization, otherwise known as ordering, that should be rejected. As far as what you perceive your motives are in doing the plan? As Jayan Nayar has said, his critique is not one of genuine intentions. c.) In this ‘argument’ pro essentially states that he has no idea what a world ordering process is, to which I am not responsible. I’ve spent hours working on this K, if he doesn’t understand what is clearly presented I can’t be held accountable. Just as a side note, if he doesn’t know what “the f*ck” a world ordering process is, then how does he know he is not using one? Violation a.) Conceded b.) Conceded Impacts a.) Conceded b.) Conceded Voters Issue and A priori a.) Conceded b.) Conceded Alternative a.) Conceded b.) Conceded Permutation In our case, a permutation is to say that we can think locally as opposed to globally and still do Pro’s Yanomami Global Initiative. This perm is interesting because its success depends on the judge. If the judge of this debate lives in, or has close ties to, the area of Brazil near the Yanomami people, then one could validly argue that they would be thinking locally by trying to change relationships they know, with those people, for their betterment. But even for those people, the permutation is a tough sell because by endorsing the plan you are also endorsing the international action needed to complete the plan, and are at that point endorsing that other people not thinking locally and instead think globally in trying to change the social, and thus interpersonal, power structures in Brazil concerning the yanomami. In my opinion not many people will have close ties to the yanomami and thus, trying to use global initiatives goes against local thinking in a two-fold manner, once for the judge (most likely), and another time for the actors who will be fiated, such as japan, the US, and other developed nations into ‘global-think’. If doing the plan is Not thinking locally, then the perm fails. What’s more, If the perm fails this proves that the kritik does in fact link to my opponent’s case, the link being his only grievance with the Kritik. Here are more reasons the perm fails: a.) The perm is impossible because the first speech endorses a mindset that I problematize. The only way for the perm to be legit is if Pro severs out of the parts of the plan that link or adds something to synthesize the two positions; either way pro becomes a moving target. b.) Even if pro can perm the kritik its logic still applies—in the real world where fiat is illusory, all they learn from being allowed to perm a kritik for any reason is that they can do so to avoid learning about the flaws in their worldview, which go uncorrected and means the kritik still applies at the end of the round.c.) Destroys initial solvency claims and warrants—pro's authors don’t assume the permutation, thus pro's solvency goes away. Keep in mindKeep in mind that the kritik is not about whether or not the plan results in bad actions. Although there are huge consequentialist impacts to the kritik, the K is ultimately about the ideas that underpin an assumption, in this case that globalization is good and can benefit anyone besides the globalizer. Think of it this way, If it were the 1700’s and to affirm this res someone proposed “let’s economically globalize by creating a slave trade to America” I would run a K which said the slave trade propagates racism which is bad, we should reject the plan because it accepts racism as acceptable. However, like zaradi is doing, a slaver might say “well even if its bad, affirm, because the plan wont hurt the blacks, we will give them a comfortable ride, with plenty of food and shelter, and when they get there they will receive the best owners possible who won’t hurt them”, I tell them, as Zaradi, that the consequentialist impacts are irrelevant to whether or not the K means they lose. If zaradi globalizes, he loses, if he doesn’t he isn’t topical and loses. Direct ArgumentsInternational fiat a.) I extend the argument that international fiat sets up a false judicial dichotomy for the judge. The judge in debate is meant to act on behalf of a single country and not the entire global community. b.) “Global community” sounds pretty large. Allowing fiat of *most* of the worlds countries allows fiated solvency. Zaradi only refutes by saying he isn’t controlling *every* country but clearly he is fiating the most powerful. c.) Voters issue, international fiat should be disallowed and thus the plan shouldn’t be allowed, and the plan damages fairness. Irony A.) Response, the k warrants this B.) Response, the K warrants that globalization *must* be that way Again, Zaradi is trying to solve globalization harms through more globalization. Other Issues - Vagueness(1): Zaradi has left his plan as vague as it was in the last round. We still don’t know how much money the plan spends which is unfair to con. We also have literally no idea what it will be used for. Furthermore, even though pro gives the English translation of the CCPY we don’t don’t know what it does or what power it has. You shouldn’t vote for a vague plan. - Vaugeness(2): I never argued that pro couldn’t tell us what the CCPY would do with the money, just that you yourself shouldn’t be able to fiat the CCPY in their expenditure of it. - Pro doesn’t solve because his plan text never explains this, his entire plan is literally one large mystery, ‘throw X amount of money at some organization which has an unknown function and hope that they can solve the problem’ - Pro concedes that he should have to prove the international community can do this but hasn’t presented the evidence. Counterplan Pro’s only objection is that brazil wouldn’t be willing to do the plan; this is what fiat is for. Pro concedes that my CP would at least result in the same impacts as his plan, however my plan does much more because it literally forces the companies to leave, madates that people leave the tribe alone and those who damage their ecosystem get prosecuted. Basically it give the Yanomami what they want. To be left alone from the outside world. Another adv is that it doesn’t use international fiat, it isn’t vague, or superfluous.Sources[5] http://tinyurl.com...