Presumption Negates
1. We presume things false, this is why people donŐt believe things like
conspiracy theories.
2. There are an infinite
number of ways to prove something false and only one way to prove it true.
3. The neg
burden is to deny the evidence of truth so if thereŐs no offense as to why the
resolution is true the neg has fulfilled their
burden.
Permissibility Negates
1. The aff
must prove an obligation because ought indicates a
moral obligation. If an action is permissible, definitionally,
no obligation is present and you negate.
The metaethic is fictionalism.
The view that external moral doctrines are arbitrary, and non
binding. This means ethics must be internally created
by specific individuals depending on their individual circumstances.
Prefer:
We must internalize and care about external claims, which means
external motivation collapses.
Joyce 1, Richard (Professor of Philosophy at Victoria
University Wellington, New Zealand). The Myth of Morality.
2001. [Bracketed for grammatical clarity] // ICW NW
Back to
the [Suppose] external reason[s]. Suppose
it were claimed, instead, that I have a reason to refrain from drinking the coffee because it is tapu and must not be touched. This reason claim will be urged
regardless of what I may say about my indifference to tapu,
or my citing of nihilistic desires to tempt the hand of fate. [r]egardless
of my desires (it is claimed) I ought not drink - l have a reason not to
drink. But how could that reason ever explain any action of mine? Could the
external reason even explain my [action] from
drinking? Clearly, in order to explain it the external reason must have some causally efficacious role
[in] among the antecedents of the action (in this case, an omission) — l
must have. in some manner. "internalized"
it. The only possibility, it would
seem, consistent with its being an external reason, is that I believe the
external reason claim [but] : I believe that the coffee
is tapu. There's no doubting that such a belief can
play a role in explaining actions - including my refraining from drinking the
coffee. The question is whether the belief alone can[not]
produce action, to which the correct answer is ŇNo.Ó A very familiar and
eminently sensible view says that in order to explain an action the belief must couple with desires (such that those same
desires had in the absence of the belief would not have resulted in the
action). And this seems correct: if I believe that the coffee is [bad] tapu but really just donŐt care about that, then I will not refrain from drinking it. So in order for the belief
to explain action it must couple with [desire] elements - but in that case the putative external
reason collapses into an internal one.3
Contracts solve this because people agree to certain constraints
to better promote their self interest. People agree to
channel their desires and in doing so, establish a set of moral agreements.
Gauthier 86
Gauthier, David P. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print. // ICW NW
Moral principles are introduced as the objects of full voluntary ex ante agreement
among rational persons.
Such agreement is
hypothetical, in supposing a pre-moral context for the adoption of moral rules
and practices. But the parties to agreement are real, determinate individuals, distinguished
by their capacities, situations, and concerns. In so far as [Since] they would agree to constraints on
their choices, restraining their pursuit of their own interests, they
acknowledge a distinction between what they may and may not do. As rational persons
understanding the structure of their interaction, they
recognize for mutual constraint, and
so for a moral dimension in their affairs.
Thus, the standard is consistency with the contractarian
principle of mutual restraint, this is when people
agree to constrain their actions for their own self interest. To clarify,
obligations arise from restraints we place on ourselves by entering
contracts.
Prefer:
1. Bindingness: Contracts are binding
since there are legal repercussions to not following them. This outweighs
because if people donŐt have any reason to follow ethics they can just not
follow it the second they donŐt want to and it loses all meaning.
2. Them contesting my framework concedes itŐs
validity since contracts were fundamental to any of their cards. For example,
your authors needed publishing licenses, and your empirical studies needed
permits.
Impact Calc:
My framework only cares about whether or not the resolution is
consistent with or inconsistent with actual contracts. The aff
must prove a contract binds states to remove patent protections, anything less
than that doesnŐt prove the resolution obligatory.
Contention 1) Patents are contracts, between companies and the
government in which the government gives companies protections and exclusive
rights to a thing and in return companies make that thing. This is an instance
of mutual restraint and as a result itŐs immoral to violate patents.
Contention 2) The TRIPS agreement, which is a binding contract
agreed to by members of the world trade organization, grants intellectual
property rights to medicines.
Supakankunti, Siripen, et al. "Impact of the World Trade Organization TRIPS Agreement on
the Pharmaceutical Industry in Thailand." World Health Organization
Bulletin, 2001,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566431/pdf/11417042.pdf. Accessed 14
Sept. 2021. ICW NW
In 1947, a total of 23 countries signed the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The primary objective was to
promote and regulate the liberalization of international trade through rounds
of trade negotiations. Between 1986 and 1994 the UruguayRound
of Multilateral Trade Negotiations led to the Marrakech Agreements. These
established the World Trade Organization (WTO) and extended the rules governing
commercial relations between trading partners to a number of new areas, such as
agriculture, services, investment measures and the protection of intellectual
property rights. All of these areas had previously been excluded from trade
liberalization. Since 1994, attention has focused on the WTO Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights
(TRIPS) as the most
far-reaching international instrument ever negotiated in this field. It establishes minimum universal standards in all
areas of intellectual property and the intention is to implement these standards
globally through a strong enforcement mechanism established in WTO. The TRIPS agreement requires universal patent
protection for any invention in any field of technology. This affects
pharmaceuticals, which many countries had previously excluded from patent
protection in order to produce drugs at reduced prices and thereby contribute
to the improvement of public health. WTO
member countries that did not previously recognize pharmaceutical patents must
amend their patent legislation within a
limited time or transition period. Any Member
country failing to bring its patent law into conformity with the TRIPS
agreement, if
challenged by another member country, is subject to the WTO dispute
settlement system. Sanctions may be established in accordance with WTO procedures. The TRIPS patent system
can be expected to have a great impact on the health sector and may negatively
affect national drug production, drug prices, the availability of essential
medicines and pharmaceutical technology, and numerous other factors in
developing and least developed countries. In addition, there could be a greater
concentration of drug production in industrial countries rather than a transfer
of technology to, or foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries.
No extensive review of the practical implications of the TRIPS agreement has
been conducted at the global and national levels, and at the regional level onlyLatin America has been covered. The present paper
examines the consequences of the agreement for the pharmaceutical industry in
Thailand with a view to learning lessons applicable to all developing
countries. Recommendations are given for alleviating the potential negative
impact resulting from mandates set forth in the agreement. In order to
determine the specific implications and potential consequences accurately and
meaningfully, we identified applicable and clearly defined objectives. Relevant
research methods were employed, including situation and data analyses, surveys
and impact assessments, and literature reviews. The situation and data analyses
and the impact assessments dealt with the effect of the 1992 Thai Patent Law on
the pharmaceutical industry in Thailand and on direct foreign investment and
the transfer of technology in the sector. For the first time this law covered
the protection of rights for both pharmaceutical processes and products.
Interpretation: Debaters
may not claim extinction comes first under any framework.
Violation: ____
Standards:
1. Strat
Skew: This structurally skews the framework debate because you can win either util is true or that extinction comes first but I have to
beat back both and win my framework. This is uniquely abusive because I could
beat every warrant for util and destroy your
framework and still lose the framework debate.
2. Phil Ed: Extinction
first doesnŐt require you to normatively justify or understand your framework, it just requires you to read an extinction
impact. Instead of having nuanced clash on the framework debate, every round
comes down to the lbl on Pummer
Ô15.
Voters:
Fairness is a voter because
the ballot makes debate a game and without fairness youŐre voting for the
better cheater not the better debater.
Drop the debater to deter
future abuse, and because if I prove abuse it means substance has already been
skewed.
Competing interps because a) reasonability has broad and
bidirectional brightlines that allow you to just keep
shifting them to justify any abuse. b) competing interps sets the best norms because you have to justify
your actual practice, so bad practices will lose.
No RVIs
a) an
RVI would mean any time theory is introduced the entire debate comes down to it
which kills substance eduation and all strategy
because in a world where thereŐs an RVI the debate would just be is this theory
shell true mooting everything else.
b) you
donŐt win for just being fair or educational.
On Case