| ... |
... |
@@ -1,51
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-==Framework== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-====I agree to the value of justice.==== |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-====Thus, the value criterion is consistency with equal freedom. This is for 3 reasons:==== |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-====~~1~~ All questions of justice are derived from freedom. Any action I take requires my ability to take that action in the first place, which means that any conception of value would depend on freedom. However, since my freedom is valuable, so is everyone else's because they have the same ability to act as I do. That means any action that violates someone's freedom is inherently contradictory because I would be exercising my freedom while undermining theirs.==== |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-====~~2~~ Freedom enables us to be responsible for actions. For example, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to steal a car, I cannot be held responsible since I was forced to take the action. That makes my framework a prior question to any other framework.==== |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
-====~~3~~ My opponent's act of arguing against my framework would prove it true since the action of debating assumes they have the freedom to make arguments.==== |
| 17 |
|
- |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-====That means the round is evaluated through the context of freedom.==== |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
-==Offense== |
| 23 |
|
- |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-===C1: Property Rights=== |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
-====If protections of intellectual property are reduced, people will be able to take each others' property without limitation.==== |
| 29 |
|
-**Van Dyke 18** Raymond Van Dyke, Technology and Intellectual Property Attorney, Patent Practitioner at Van Dyke Intellectual Property Law, 7-17-2018, accessed 10-15-21, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJ//DA recut |
| 30 |
|
-As we shall see, applying Kantian logic entails first acknowledging some basic principles; |
| 31 |
|
-AND |
| 32 |
|
-trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust. |
| 33 |
|
- |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
-====Affirming the resolution would imply that theft of intellectual property is acceptable, but theft is immoral and violates people's control over their property.==== |
| 36 |
|
- |
| 37 |
|
- |
| 38 |
|
-===C2: Freedom Violations=== |
| 39 |
|
- |
| 40 |
|
- |
| 41 |
|
-====Even if reducing IP protections has good effects, it's incompatible with moral obligation, which makes it wrong.==== |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
- |
| 44 |
|
-====The existence of intellectual property protections is an acceptable use of freedom because people should have the ability to control their property. To prevent these actions by getting rid of property protections is thereby immoral.==== |
| 45 |
|
-**Ripstein 09** Arthur Ripstein, Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor at the University of Toronto. Force and Freedom pg. 30-31. 2009 Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0hb0 //ACCS JM |
| 46 |
|
-The Universal Principle of Right states that "an action is right if it can |
| 47 |
|
-AND |
| 48 |
|
-universal law, and Kant's characterization of that system in terms of coercion. |
| 49 |
|
- |
| 50 |
|
- |
| 51 |
|
-====If one person has control over their intellectual property, that does not interfere with another person's ability to control their own intellectual property. It is immoral to stop people from doing this because the government cannot violate people's freedom for unjustified reasons.==== |