NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2019. See message below.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "Government Responsibility"
The resolution explicitly mandates you debate within the confines of a government actor. This case attempts to leverage every implication of that.
First, the vast majority of AFF applications outside protectionism (which is defensibly distinct from fair trade) concern private auditing organizations like Fair Trade International, which ensure that producers in developing countries treat their workers humanely. Shelve the issue that the resolution doesn’t even encompass this because trade and employment law occupy different domains—the government actor point alone is enough to beat it. Private organizations are products of the free market, which supports your side. Establish this framework in the resolutional analysis, then hammer the point in your second contention that your side accrues all the benefits of your opponent’s.
Second, within the well-established social contract tradition, governments have very particular obligations to their citizens. In the context of a government actor, elevating these moral obligations as the value makes logical sense. With this value framework secured, the AFF position is bankrupt—governments intervening in development countries to stop overseas producers from mistreating their employees does not cohere with the government’s narrowly demarcated responsibility.
Hence, this case relies upon a streamlined, philosophically intuitive premise. Defend that premise and the resolutional analysis and you win the round.
- 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.
Joel consistently won tournaments or advanced deep into elimination rounds in NCFCA speech and Lincoln-Douglas debate. As a collegiate forensics competitor, he has enjoyed similar success with parliamentary debate and mock trial. Currently, Joel studies philosophy at Wheaton College and coaches debate for multiple organizations.