texts/model_speech1.txt

Model Speech Motion: this house supports the creation of an international court with a mandate to prosecute leaders for health crimes 

URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/s8g4BLdhQQw?feature=share&t=782

Model Speech(OG)

it is crazy that when it is the bullet that takes the toll we form quartz but when it is the bacteria we throw up our hands and we forget like it never happened to be clear what are we doing in this debate firstly we broadly expect an international court to be created in alignment with the wealth well world health organization and we expect this to be heavily supported by all the countries part of the world health organization. we expect us to have the participation of scientists experts to consistently write technical papers in order to inform our judgments appoint these from each country for judges and so on we also expect that participation in the world health organization and receiving benefits like aid is conditional of being party to this international court why is this likely to be the manifestation of the court i know up will challenge this there are seven reasons why we think countries will opt in and why we think this would be effective first countries that do not consent to such an authority without themselves having some say in the negotiation of that body would obviously be revolting so they would like to have some participation given that this body will have some control over the world's health resources no matter what secondly the second is that this is likely a broad worry that the international community is ineffective which is why they are likely to take these actions into their own hands because they want to make these decisions reasonable they learn from the mistakes of previous international courts thirdly the third is that people generally care about health as an issue and they want to be a participant to many things that are clearly on the level of a global scale the fourth is that there is a selfish advantage to imposing stringent regulations and that leaders now are unlikely to face the consequences of being punished as they are on their way out but will benefit from the legitimacy this provides their authoritarianism or whatever they are fifty is that they're also the game theoretic advantage in that you are harmed by other states in the case of pandemic goes awry so you want to hold other states to account sixthly the advantage is that many benefits you care about like health education cheap medical goods and so on will be contingent on this and beyond that there are spillover effects like economic benefits that you may care about so you want to be party to this in order to receive the benefits of the wealth organization and so on so what the crimes are we punishing so we look to examples like bolsonaro being unwilling to comply with a recommendation for usage of masks and warranty measures we're looking at the unwillingness for china to comply with wealth world health organization investigations on the village and institut we're talking about the harding of resources in countries and so on vaccines and ventilators why do they do these crimes so there are a variety of reasons we suspect they might do this they might not be technologically at the time or they might not have the right decision or maybe it's just the short-term incentives are too powerful and they feel the need to sacrifice thousands of lives in the future to allay present fears we will impose punishments such as imprisoning leaders for expanded periods of time taking them out of power or asking them to depose a bdd pose we're okay with doing this during the crisis if it is feasible to realign national incentives but we expect that in some cases for it to happen after the fact anyway so there are two arguments in the speech first what are the benefit before that i'll take up your wife from closing opposition so we also tried creating an international court for human crimes and camps against humanity how successful has that been that's a good question maybe you should answer that in your speech number one we believe that there are trivial benefits to encouraging countries to comply with health regulation note that this massively changes the incentives of leaders we identify in the setup for all the reasons we give we suspect this has gigantic benefits first on following the regulations on pandemics things like covid potential future ones like sars preventable diseases like malaria first we enjoin the prevention of future harm from occurring to people because measures are taken to overturn the anti-short-term the short-term incentive to focus on keeping the economy afloat instead of the long-term incentive of acting early we're able to mobilize health forces to start early lockdown in areas that would not have otherwise done it which means that we prevent massively the spread of diseases while they are still easy to solve secondly this allows for effective healthcare response in that actual policies imposed by the world health organization are substantially more effective than once implemented on the ground because they have access to a greater breadth of resources such as health experts from all around the world who have access to various different contacts and so on thirdly they benefit from a cohesive response in the sense that lockdowns and other policies become ineffective since pandemics don't recognize borders even if the spread is very slow in one place if it is open in another place the spread might still continue and as such you will have to keep it locked down for as long as everyone has kept the borders open we also suspect the allocation of effective resources to where it's most needed it is crazy that in the philippines hospitals are missing ventilators vaccines and beds while there are storehouses full of them in the western world we suspect it would be a massive benefit simply to put places when resources in some countries into other countries and to allow access to these things at the threat of imprisoning people for hoarding resources for future potential gain notably this also deals with massive future benefits such as antibiotics where in the sense that in order in the order of future potential lives diseases that have no cure might potentially arise because we have they have built up an immunity to everything we could throw at them because we decide to spend our antibiotics on agriculture and so on instead of protecting the lives of people we suspect massively reducing the either the political incentive for countries to do this or the capacity for them to do this by taking away the resources by making them not party to the international organizations anymore would massively benefit these individuals note i just want to impact this before we move on to the next part about enjoining trust the first is that in terms of scale this is a policy on a jerk down to one scale cleaving across hundreds of countries and ensuring that health resources are more adequately allocated and equitably allocated to the thousands of the world's most poor but secondly in terms of gravity this deals with some of the most vulnerable those in rural areas without effective health care resources those who are old and cannot take vaccines and rely on herd immunity these are the people we protect notably as a secondary benefit we think is equally important in the sense that the creation of a court causes trust to arise and increase overall investment and participation in global health the authority refrain is that these countries are ineffective in the sense that they are toothless even if the world's organization tells you to do something you're unlikely to follow it moreover politicians want to be sure that they can hold other politicians to account so they will likely to manifest their will through the score and moreover no politician wants to look like they will fear like they will be imprisoned for committing a health time which means that they will also increasingly participate in the support this means that we have way more money for operations from local forces and participation in this or international organization which means that we amplify any of the benefits we provide earlier and they seem to be pretty big benefits the end of this first argument is quite simple we're closer to saving the world secondly this is also principally important and principally legitimate we suspect an argument to come out that you might subvert the democratic will of people there are four reasons why this doesn't happen and notably why this is also principally interesting to do the first is that this organization is consented to countries participate in the organization and the ratification of such a treaty and the court but moreover they vote in politicians that do negotiating for them secondly the health care that we propose is a fundamental right that exists as a precondition for the fulfillment of democratic will if you are dying if you do not have access to goods it doesn't matter if you might hypothetically access your will in the future if you are not able to access that because you don't survive moreover an effective baseline in the first place is necessary regardless of whether or not the democratic will is important states have a responsibility to opt into situations where they allow for the preconditions to that will exist and manifest in the first place fourthly we also identify that on the balance of rights even if you fulfill your democratic will as a people this is often comes at the balance or at the cost of other of the democratic rights that other individuals might have so you as a country as a western country might be okay with having you know very not stringent that's the opposite of that very lacks of partying measures but people in surrounding countries who might be harmed by the infections that come out might still not have access to democrats and might have not consented to that in the first place this often very difficult for countries to face we also suspect there are two separate principle reasons as for why we think this is very very good the first is on the level of utilitarianism this deals with benefits on a gigantic scale in the sense that thousands and thousands of people's lives who do not care a wit about democratic will do not care about principle digimons without be given access to their lives but thirdly this deals with people on the scale or inordinately into the future like to say future deaths of pandemics that is the future that's the superbugs from antibiotics people who would not have to spend massive amounts of money in order to support a government welfare policy in order to support in order to support a basically overburdened and basically toppling uh international health system we suspect that these benefits are also quite large for three reasons that they're substantially more likely to be people in the future their population is growing over time secondly these people have no consent to what happened over the past now we have a responsibility to create an international court for these people in the future and thirdly is that we are taking mutually exclusive resources away from them which is why we should care for them there are two reasons why opening government wins just a bit the first is that we explain why we save the world and secondly we explain why there is no other possible choice.