Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China
AC Human Rights AT #2--No Moral Obligation
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US human rights protections are modeled globally—it’s ethical and practical to protect them
- 2AC Human Rights AT 3—High Magnitude Impacts Outweigh
- Low risk, high magnitude impacts are extremely flawed—it’s propaganda and causes war
- Failure to prevent human rights abuses risks nuclear war
2AC Human Rights AT #2--No Moral ObligationThey say There’s no moral obligation to improve human rights , but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their analytic evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts)
(their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument) ( ) (their evidence supports our argument) [WRITE IN YOUR OWN!] [EXPLAIN HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW] First, our author is a professor and ethical expert at the college level. We should trust his logical argument. Second, their argument does not make sense. We should always try to protect human rights even if we can’t fix all violations. If people thought that way, we wouldn’t try to fix any of the world’s problems. [EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] This matters because: this frames the debate. The judge should always vote to protect human rights and we do that best.
Human Rights First, 2012 [nonprofit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C., “How to Integrate Human Rights into U.S.-China Relations”, December, https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/24330/uploads] On human rights, the United States must be a beacon. Activists fighting for freedom around the globe continue to look to us for inspiration and count on us for support. Upholding human rights is not only a moral obligation; it’s a vital national interest. America is strongest when our policies and actions match our values. Human Rights First is an independent advocacy and action organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals. We believe American leadership is essential in the struggle for human rights so we press the U.S. government and private companies to respect human rights and the rule of law. When they don’t, we step in to demand reform, accountability and justice. Around the world, we work where we can best harness American influence to secure core freedoms. We know that it is not enough to expose and protest injustice, so we create the political environment and policy solutions necessary to ensure consistent respect for human rights. Whether we are protecting refugees, combating torture, or defending persecuted minorities, we focus not on making a point, but on making a difference. For over 30 years, we’ve built bipartisan coalitions and teamed up with frontline activists and lawyers to tackle issues that demand American leadership. 2AC Human Rights AT #3—High Magnitude Impacts OutweighThey say Large wars outweigh human rights, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their Ochs evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts) (their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true) (their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument)
[WRITE IN YOUR OWN!] [EXPLAIN HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW] Our Gibney evidence discusses the point that their Ochs evidence makes. Gibney argues that logic is wrong because it lets thousands die daily. Furthermore, the more probable impact should be preferred because, while their impact is bad, there’s an infinitely small chance it will happen. [EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] This matters because: if human rights protections come first, the judge must vote for the aff. We outweigh all of their impacts.
Parry, 2012 [Robert, broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, “Return of Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine”, Feb. 4, https://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/04/return-of-cheneys-one-percent-doctrine/]But it should be clear what the game is. Israeli hardliners and American neocons want a return to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “one percent doctrine,” as described by author Ron Suskind. That is, if there is even a one percent chance that a terrorist attack might be launched against the United States, it must be treated as a certainty, thus justifying any preemptive military action that U.S. officials deem warranted. That was the mad-hatter policy that governed the U.S. run-up to the Iraq War, when even the most dubious and dishonest claims by self-interested Iraqi exiles and their neocon friends were treated as requiring a bloody invasion of a country then at peace. In those days, not only was there a flood of disinformation from outside the U.S. government, there also was a readiness inside George W. Bush’s administration to channel those exaggerations and lies into a powerful torrent of propaganda aimed at the American people, still shaken from the barbarity of the 9/11 attacks. So, the American people heard how Iraq might dispatch small remote-controlled planes to spray the United States with chemical or biological weapons, although Iraq was on the other side of the globe. The New York Times hyped bogus claims about aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges. Other news outlets spread false stories about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger and about supposed Iraqi links to al-Qaeda terrorists. There was a stampede of one-upsmanship in the U.S. news media as everyone competed to land the latest big scoop about Iraq’s nefarious intentions and capabilities. Even experienced journalists were sucked in . In explaining one of these misguided articles, New York Times correspondent Chris Hedges told the Columbia Journalism Review that “We tried to vet the defectors and we didn’t get anything out of Washington that said, ‘these guys are full of shit.’” Based in Paris, Hedges said he would get periodic calls from his editors asking that he check out defector stories originating from Ahmed Chalabi’s pro-invasion Iraqi National Congress. “I thought he was unreliable and corrupt, but just because someone is a sleazebag doesn’t mean he might not know something or that everything he says is wrong,” Hedges said. More Scary Talk Even after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the eventual realization that the fear-mongering was based on falsehoods, President Bush kept up the scary talk with claims about Iraq as the “central front” in the “war on terror” and al-Qaeda building a “caliphate” stretching from Indonesia to Spain and thus threatening the United States. Fear seemed to be the great motivator for getting the American people to line up behind actions that, on balance, often created greater dangers for the United States. Beyond the illegality and immorality of attacking other countries based on such fabrications, there was the practical issue of unintended consequences. Which is the core logical fallacy of Cheney’s “one percent doctrine.” Overreacting to an extremely unlikely threat can create additional risks that also exceed the one percent threshold, which, in turn, require more violent responses, thus cascading outward until the country essentially destroys itself in pursuit of the illusion of perfect security. The “one percent doctrine” is like the scene in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” as the lazy helper enchants a splintering broom to carry water for him but then cannot control the ensuing chaos of a disastrous flood. The rational approach to national security is not running around screaming about imaginary dangers but evaluating the facts carefully and making judgments as to how the threats can be managed without making matters worse.
Mawdsley, 2008 (Christy, Texas A&M U. “An Interest in Intervention: A Moral Argument for Darfur”. http://asq.africa.ufl.edu/files/Mawdsley-Vol10Issue1.pdf) Scholars and policymakers who propose that international stability is not relevant to U.S. national interests misunderstand the very nature of a globalized world. A globalized world, by definition, is one that entails aggregated systems of all types: economic, communications, transportation, ecological, and others. International stability levels have the potential to feed in to each one of these systems, thereby affecting American quality of life either positively or negatively (albeit to varying degrees). Genocide and similar atrocities have historically shown to have destabilizing effects. Because of globalization, this may have an (indirect or direct) negative effect on the American national interest. In the Darfur genocide, for instance, millions of refugees have fled over the SudaneseChadian border into Chad, contributing to higher monetary and resource costs for the already poor government of Chad. The humanitarian crisis that has ensued in both Chad and Sudan divert resources from important areas in need of funding such as education, the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and economic development. In a world of independent nations, U.S. policymakers could write this off as irrelevant to the national interest. But in a globalized world, airplanes cross borders thousands of times a day, and the U.S. imports goods and resources from hundreds of nations, and nuclear weapons can be launched from one continent and hit another. Though these impacts might be irrelevant in the Darfur genocide, they might become far more relevant in a future genocide in a more strategically-relevant location. Ideas and products flow freely in this age, and it is certainly in the U.S. national interest to prevent the spread of the instability caused by genocide in our globalized world. What makes an activist approach when faced with genocide or similar events far more compelling is the argument that action is not only consistent with U.S. interests but also with U.S. values. Values are important because, in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic country such as the United States, they are precisely what bring American citizens together as a nation. The values upheld in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the glue that gives American people a shared identity. They are thus of immense weight in U.S. survival as a nation. Our values should be upheld consistently both in domestic and foreign policy. An inconsistent application of our values in the broadest sense will lead to an erosion of the strength of the United States as a common nation as values are indeed the foundation. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|