Tournament: Jack Howe | Round: Octas | Opponent: Samammish LW | Judge: Panel
1ac
Pandemics
Global health inequality threatens progress in fight vs COVID-19 encouraging vaccine resistant mutations
Fink 7-30-21
(Jenni, https://www.newsweek.com/who-warns-world-blind-understanding-covid-spread-hurting-ability-end-pandemic-1614722)
A lack of testing for COVID-19 in parts of the world is preventing
AND
We can test for it and we can treat it," Ghebreyesus said.
IP protections are the vital internal link to reduce vaccine inequality. Empirics disprove all pro patent arguments
Kumar, PhD, 7-12-21
(Rajeesh, Associate Fellow Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, https://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721)
In October 2020, India and South Africa had submitted a proposal to the World
AND
not expedient in a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
We’re facing an imminent vaccine shortage now – only by establishing strong infrastructure can we prevent the next pandemic
Nancy Jecker and Caesar Atuire, 2021 – Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA, What’s yours is ours: waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines | Journal of Medical Ethics (bmj.com)recut
In reply, even if the final translation of science into marketable products would not
AND
will be African—continue to import 99 of its vaccine?’18
COVID and future pandemics create massive instability – this escalates and risks nuclear war – multitude of warrants.
RECNA et al 21 - Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University (RECNA), Asia Pacific Leadership Network (APLN) and Nautilus Institute
RECNA, APLN, and the Nautilus Institute, “Pandemic Futures and Nuclear Weapon
AND
by nuclear threat, with cascading effects on the risk of nuclear war.
If COVID doesn’t kill us all, numerous factors guarantee the next pandemic will – preparing now is key to prevent extinction.
Ord 20 – Philosopher and research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute
Toby Ord, “Why we need worst-case thinking to prevent pandemics,” The Guardian, March 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/06/worst-case-thinking-prevent-pandemics-coronavirus-existential-risk
The world is in the early stages of what may be the most deadly pandemic
AND
by a positive vision of the longterm future we are trying to protect.
Solvency
Thus, the plan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should reduce intellectual property protections of medicines during pandemics.
Removing IP protections will increase production, diversify supply, and spur innovations that protect against future pandemics
Human Rights Watch 6-3-21 https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/03/seven-reasons-eu-wrong-oppose-trips-waiver#
Intellectual property is currently a barrier to swiftly scaling up and diversifying the production of
AND
and safety for vaccines, which have a very stringent process for approval.
Status quo medical innovation results in inequality, which the aff corrects.
Parthasarathy 20 – Shobita Parthasarathy is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at University of Michigan. (“Innovation Policy, Structural Inequality, and COVID-19,” 2020, pg. 105-107) julian
The private sector then capitalizes on the results of this scientific curiosity to develop socially
AND
civic duty as it determines pricing for this promising COVID-19 drug.
Traditional patent law and IPP legitimize biopiracy’s control over dominated subjects, turning them into capital. We get rid of that and step in the right direction
Breske 2 Ashleigh, visiting assistant professor of international studies in the global politics and societies (GPS) department @ Hollins University. She earned her Ph.D. in planning, governance, and globalization at Virginia Tech, her M.A.L.S. in social sciences with a focus on Roman history from Hollins University, and her B.S. in biology with a concentration in classical studies and chemistry. Her current research explores how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in repatriation policy for indigenous cultural property, “Biocolonialism: Examining Biopiracy, Inequality, and Power”, Spectra, 6(2), pp.58–73. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21061/spectra.v6i2.a.6//pranav
Through biopiracy, outside corporations and nations can quickly take resources and secure their control
AND
for profit creates a political tension between national interests and globalized capital.xviii
Framing
The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing
Only pain and pleasure are intrinsically good or bad – everything else collapses.
Moen 16 Ole Martin Moen, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo “An Argument for Hedonism” Journal of Value Inquiry (Springer), 50 (2) 2016: 267–281
Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic
AND
places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value.
Extinction is a unique ontological phenomenon that outweighs under every ethical theory.
Burke et al., Associate Professor of International and Political Studies @ UNSW, Australia, ‘16
(Anthony, Stefanie Fishel is Assistant Professor, Department of Gender and Race Studies at the University of Alabama, Audra Mitchell is CIGI Chair in Global Governance and Ethics at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Simon Dalby is CIGI Chair in the Political Economy of Climate Change at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, and, Daniel J. Levine is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama, “Planet Politics: Manifesto from the End of IR,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 1–25)
8. Global ethics must respond to mass extinction. In late 2014, the
AND
which undermines the conditions of plurality that enables life on Earth to thrive.
Util is lexically prior – in order for agents to be able to engage in complex moral deliberations they must first be safe and not in danger of death – that means materially reducing violence outweighs.
Actor specificity – side constraints make action impossible because government policies always require trade-offs and involve the actions of multiple agents with conflicting moral obligations—the way to resolve those conflicts is by benefiting everyone. Different agents have different ethical obligations – even if they win a theory of personal moral imperatives its fundamentally different then the states obligations.
No intent-foresight distinction – foreseeable consequences of an action are intrinsic to an action – i.e. if I give an apple to you knowing its rotten then I’m responsible for you getting sick because I knew the consequences would happen and therefore intended them to happen. That means that voting neg despite foreseeing the consequences of the affirmative is intrinsically bad.
Aff gets 1AR theory – otherwise the neg can be infinitely abusive and there’s no way to check back. 1AR theory is drop the debater, competing interps, and the highest layer of the round – the 1ARs too short to be able to rectify abuse and adequately cover substance. No RVI or 2N theory because you have 6 minutes to go for them whereas I only have a 3 minute 2AR to respond so I get crushed on time skew.