First, this brief establishes through several modes of proof that governments are required to respect rights, even the rights of non-citizens. Second, this brief acknowledges the difference between negative action (not violating rights) and positive action (actively protecting rights) and demonstrates that governments possess an obligation to do both. Third, this brief demonstrates how fair trade categorically protects rights, thus fulfilling the purpose of government.
Most LD cases negotiate a delicate balance between the two ideals in the resolution, affirming the worth of both while positing the superiority of one. Dispensing with that convention, this case constitutes an unexpectedly uninhibited assault on privacy.
The resolution explicitly mandates you debate within the confines of a government actor. This case attempts to leverage every implication of that.
This case leverages rights-oriented impacts without devolving into the circularity of defining privacy as a right.
This affirmative case constructs the following premises: ethics is the highest goal, free trade is unrestricted, and fair trade is restricted for the purpose of ethics.