NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2019. See message below.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "General Welfare (AFF)"
Fair Trade is an economic philosophy centered around helping those at the bottom of the production process. These producers are often farmers and factory workers in developing countries who work long hours, for low wages, in poor conditions. Fair trade provides guidelines for conditions and wages that increase the standards of living for workers who make the goods we use every-day. As the affirmative debater, it is your job to argue in favor of the fair trade philosophy.
This affirmative case enables you to argue in favor of fair trade through the value of General Welfare. General welfare recognizes the dignity of a nations citizens and works to ensure just and ethical standards of living. You will argue that fair trade upholds the principles of general welfare and therefore is superior to the conflicting philosophy of free trade. This argument is made through three contentions; one: government has a responsibility to general welfare, two: free trade endangers general welfare, and three: fair trade protects general welfare. Governments have an obligation to act in a way that is best for the general welfare of their citizens. Due to this obligation, good governments will not support policy that can lead to the potential exploitation of their citizens. After making the argument for the importance of your value, go on to argue that free trade works against the principles of general welfare while fair trade works right along-side them.
In order to win the ballot, continuously make connections between lack of general welfare though free trade and efforts to secure general welfare through fair trade. Additionally, it might be helpful to bring up more examples of exploitation through free trade in the first affirmative rebuttle. Make it your goal to convince the judge that free trade is a problem and fair trade provides the solution. Every citizen is entitled to fair and just labor, regardless of their social standing.
To refute this case, you want to prove that the value of general welfare is not best achieved through fair trade. Once you have disconnected the value from the case, it should be fairly easy to deconstruct the rest of it. Make the argument that free trade and limited government intervention lead to the highest living standards. Lastly, you can make the argument that the government as an actor is a bad idea – therefore the resolution should be negated. Fair trade is fine but not when the government is the one enforcing it.
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All Membership content and Library Archives are proprietary intellectual content, so please respect our copyrights. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member or a Library Access Owner you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited, the only exception being from immediate family members within a single household.
Sydney competed in NCFCA for 5 years in both speech events and LD style debate. She regularly advanced to out-rounds and iron-manned nationals in 2017. Sydney is currently majoring in Philosophy and English at Grove City College and is an active member of the debate team on campus. She loves debate because it teaches how to both communicate well and understand multiple perspectives and philosophies.