1NC

1NC – Off
Permissibility and presumption negate
1] Obligations- the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and
permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation
2] Falsity- Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the
statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true
creates contradictions which would be ethically bankrupt.
3] Negating is harder – A] Aff gets first and last speech which control the direction of
the debate B] Affirmatives can strategically uplayer in the 1ar giving them a 7-6 time
skew advantage, splitting the 2nr C] They get infinite prep time
4] Affirmation theory- Affirming requires unconditionally maintaining an obligation
Affirm [is to]: maintain as true.
That’s Dictionary.com- “affirm” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm

The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution.
- weigh with offence defense paradigms, rob>theory, no prefiat.
[1] Logic—anything else is arbitrary, the better player wins the game because every
round has a winner and a loser.
[2] Answers collapse to truth testing, because for a statement to be evaluated, it has
truth value.
[3] Jurisdiction—five dictionaries define negate as to deny the truth of and affirms to
prove true which means the only obligation of the judge is to vote on the methods
truth/falsity.
[4] Constitutivism—any other ROB enforces an external norm on debate, but only
truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate.
[5] Spillover—the only thing that comes out of the ballot is a decision which means
that maximizing jurisdiction comes before everything else.
[6] Isomorphism—scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has
to intervene to see who is closest at solving the problem.
Now negate:
1] The Place Paradox- if everything exists in a place, that place must have a place that
it exists in and so forth. Therefore, identifying ought statements is impossible since it
assumes the space-time continuum.
2] Grain Paradox- One grain falling makes no sound, but a thousand grains make a
sound. A thousand nothings cannot make something which means the physical world
is paradoxical.
3] Arrows Paradox- If time is divided into 0-duration slices, no motion is happening in
each of them, so taking them all as a whole, motion is impossible.
4] The rules of logic claim that the only time a statement is invalid is if the antecedent
is true, but the consequent is false.
SEP [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.] “An Introduction to Philosophy.” Stanford University.
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/dictionary/dictionary.html TG Massa

Conditional statement: an “if p, then q” compound statement (ex. If I throw this ball into the air, it will
come down); p is called the antecedent, and q is the consequent. A conditional asserts that if its
antecedent is true, its consequent is also true; any conditional with a true antecedent and a false
consequent must be false. For any other combination of true and false antecedents and consequents,
the conditional statement is true.

“If the neg is winning, they get the ballot” is a tacit ballot conditional which means
denying the premise proves the conclusion that I should get the ballot.
 1NC – Off
The Meta ethic must be egoism. Agents are egoistic and the basis of ethics must
recognize as such.
a] Bindingness—only theories based on the nature of the subject are applicable and
can guide action because the lived experience is a side constraint.
b] Indexicals—multiple contradictory truths can co-exist which requires a sovereign to
determine the ultimate truth. That makes negation of sovereignty impossible because
individuals can just assert their own opinions as prima facie true and thus impossible
to contest – triggers permissibility since we cant achieve justice since we all have
different conceptions of morals
The 1AC forgot to justify naturalism. Do not let the 1AR get new meta ethics, that
restarts the debate in the 1AR which means you default to the Egoism Meta Ethic.
Hedonism collapses to moral egoism – even if pleasure is intrinsically good and
motivating, it doesn’t follow that other subjects pleasure is also intrinsically good
1] Non-sequitur – saying that x is good for me doesn’t entail that x is good for
everybody.
2] Solipsism – we can’t verify if other humans also are experiential subjects or are just
fleshy objects.
3] Dependency – Even if pleasure is good for everyone, they haven’t warranted why
one agent has an obligation to any other. Outweighs – none of their metaphysical
justifications are actor-specific. Moral egoism means relativism which they can’t solve.
4) Psychological Egoism is true – all actions are motivated by self-serving desires
Irwin ‘17
“Psychological Egoism and Self-Interest” William Irwin, King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, PA Reason Papers Vol. 39, no. 2 https://reasonpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/rp_392_5.pdf
Lindale PP

the ego is inescapable. The word itself suggests that the subject is
The first step in arguing for psychological egoism is to note that the I, , “egoism”

primary. The I can never do what the I does not want to do. Alas, the illusion that a person can do, and perhaps ought to do, what that person does not want to do in the interest of
others is a mainstay in philosophical discourse. Michael Slote, for example, worries, “If there is no such thing as (human) altruism, then the altruistic demands of most social codes and most moral philosophies may be deeply undermined,” and he scolds defenders of psychological egoism
for “show[ing] precious few signs of recognizing and regretting the destructively iconoclastic direction of their views and arguments.”10 I, for one, do recognize that psychological egoism is destructive and iconoclastic, but those are not reasons to deny a philosophical truth. As I shall

People believe what they think is true, and

argue below, embracing enlightened self-interest can alleviate Slote’s concerns about negative consequences. Of course, why the I wants to do x is often complex.

people do what they want to do. It does not make sense to say, “I believe the cat is on the mat, but I
do not think it is true.” If you did not think it was true, you would not believe it
11 Likewise (at least not anymore). , it does not

“I do not want to exercise, but I am now going to exercise.”

make literal sense to say, sounds more reasonable This, however, and less

We can have competing desires

contradictory than the claim about the cat, the mat, belief, and truth. emotions and . We can want and not want to do the same thing at the same time in the sense that our

intellect may be in conflict a prudential, rational decision to do something unpleasant

. For example, may , like exercise,

override a strong emotional desire So it can make sense to say “I do

for something with more short-term pleasure, like lying on the couch. non-literal, hyperbolic

not want to do this at all” and yet do it in the next moment. But what is being expressed, in the exercise example, by “I do not want to do this at all” is that there is no emotional desire to do the action. The subsequent

strong rational desire

action attests, however, that there is a trumped emotional desire , which in this case the . In Human, All Too Human, Friedrich Nietzsche says, “No man has ever done anything that
was done wholly for others and with no personal motivation whatever; how, indeed, should a man be able to do something that had no reference to himself, that is to say lacked all inner compulsion (which would have its basis in personal need)? How could the ego act without the

The ego ultimately does what it wants to do; it is foundational. At the

ego?”12 The buck has to stop somewhere. It stops with the ego.13

ultimate level, why you want to do something for someone else is because you want to. Thus, all
actions are ultimately rooted in the desire of the ego to do what it wants. The “my own-ness” of the action, the desire that motivates it, makes it egoistic

even a moralist who always

and self-interested, just not necessarily in an ugly, selfish way. Joel Marks argues: What we do is always an action, and an action is always motivated, and another name for motivation is ‘desire’. Thus,

strove to do the right thing

consciously would be doing what [they]
, even when this meant acting in opposition to other things she would much rather be doing, , in the last analysis,

she wanted to do, simply in virtue of being motivated to do the right thing .14 Marks believes that we always do what we want to do, but he also believes
that what we want to do is not always what we perceive to be in our self-interest. That sounds reasonable at first, but it raises a question: If it is not in my perceived self-interest, then why do I want to do it? The easy answer is, “For the benefit of someone else.” However, that raises the
question: “Why do I want to benefit someone else?” The answer then comes down to “because I want to,” and that desire may be bound up with love, guilt, duty, or what have you. But if I am doing it because I want to, then that is tantamount to acting out of self-interest. Clearly, I am

I cannot act purely out of love, duty,

acting out of an interest, and just as clearly that interest is my own. My loves, guilts, and sense of duty are my own, and I act to address them. Addressing them is my self-interest.

or anything else. Foundational or ultimate egoism is inescapable. Foundational or ultimate or pure altruism is impossible because it would require what is impossible:

we should not equate

doing what I ultimately do not want to do.15 This is important to recognize because it dismantles an impossible ideal that sets people up for perpetual failure and the feelings that attend the failure. To be clear,

egoism or self-interest with hedonism. , when you make a sacrifice to help your child, this does For example

not necessarily mean that you or feel great pleasure in, but it does mean that you are
are doing something you will enjoy

choosing to do what you ultimately want to do. Satisfying that most basic desire is tantamount to serving self-interest as we have articulated it. Selfinterest
cannot be defined solely in terms of pleasure, happiness, or even advantage, but only in terms of desire to make a person’s life go best. Talk of sacrifice calls to mind the well-worn example of
the soldier who throws herself on a grenade to save her friends. This example is typically offered as a counterexample to disprove psychological egoism. The counterexample is ineffective,
however, because it could be that, seeing the opportunity, the soldier decides she would not be able to live with allowing her friends to die.16 Or it could be that she sees this as a moment of
glory that will allow her memory to live on. Or it could be that she believes there will be a heavenly reward, and so she will benefit after all. What is impossible is that the soldier does
something that she does not want to do. In other words, an ultimately altruistic motivation is impossible.

Moral egoism means relativism which they can’t solve

1] Schmagency – even if we know what is ethical, there’s no reason that we are bound
to ethical behavior.
2] Application – even if we agree on what is ethical, we’ll still disagree on what the
best way on how to maximize ethical outcomes.
Absent a sovereign, a state of nature arises and ethics become impossible:
[a] Violence - limited resources and human competition devolve into infinite war
against the other.
[b] Deceit - agents are incentivized to always operate in bad-faith since there’s always
a risk that others are also bad actors.
[c] Epistemic - even if agents want to be ethical, philosophical and cultural differences
lead to different ethical conclusions which results in infinite disagreements about how
to apply those ethical systems.
In order to prevent the state of nature, individuals must unite to imbue a sovereign
with absolute authority to define ethics – individuals can disobey the sovereign only
when alienated from self-preservation.
Lopata 73 [Bracketed for Gendered Language. Benjamin B. Lopata (B.Phil from Balliol College, Oxford).
“Property Theory in Hobbes.” Political Theory, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1973), pp. 203-218. Accessed
7/31/2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191194?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents //Xu] *bracketed
for gendered language
Hobbes is preeminently a philosopher of peace. He sees self-preser- vation, the protection of one's life, as the basic human aim-the summum
bonum; his political philosophy is an attempt to indicate the optimum conditions which lead to the preservation of life. Hobbes believes in the
necessity of an absolute sovereign, a conclusion which he reaches by considering the condition of man in the state of nature, a logical
precondition of civil society. The
state of nature is not a historical condition; rather, it is a situation in which
there is no supreme power to impose the order necessary for self-preservation. It is, as Watkins (1965: 72)
notes, "an 'ideal' or limiting case." Hobbes (1958: 106) characterizes the state of nature as "a war of every man against every man," a condition
in which the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1958: 107). There are three principle causes of quarrel in the state
of nature: "first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes, 1958: 106). Hobbes believes that men, in their pursuit of felicity,
their constant competition for power after power have the right to all things in the state of nature; this condition is conducive to war, since, as
Goldsmith (1966: 88) notes, In such a state of nature, although A and B do not necessarily have a right to the same thing, they may have. B's
right does not exclude A's right; in a state of nature, no man can acquire an exclusive right to anything. A may claim what B currently has.
Furthermore, since men are naturally diffident, or fearful of one another, each will be likely to preserve his safety by attacking his neighbor,
since he fears his neighbor might well do the same to him. Finally, men are vain and constantly seek glory; each views himself as superior to
other man and wants others to recognize this fact. Men will, according to Hobbes (1958: 106), use violence "for trifles, as a word, a smile, a
different opinion, and any other sign of under-value." These motivations, coupled with the natural equality of all men-an equality predicated on
the ability of the weakest to kill the strongest-are the parameters which explain the continuous state of war in the Hobbesian state of nature.
Hobbes believes that man is a creature who is primarily motivated by his passions; reason cannot tell men what to desire but only how best to
gratify their passions. Indeed, for Hobbes (1958: 109), it is as a result of mcn's passions that the move from the state of nature to civil society is
effected: "The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by
their industry to obtain them." Of these passions, it is fear which is the predominant spur to peace, as Professor Plamenatz (1963: 12) notes:
"And where there is anarchy, the passion which will make men submit once again to law and government will not be a passion weakened by
anarchy but a passion which anarchy makes strong. And that passion, as Hobbes says, is fear." Men desire peace; it is a reason which suggests
the laws of nature which make peace achievable, laws which are in effect conditional maxims of prudence, rather than divinely inspired duties
binding on all men. Hobbes' laws of nature, as John Dewey (1918: 110) observes, "are equivalent to the counsels and precepts of prudence,
that is to say, of judgment as to the proper means for attaining the end of a future enduring happiness." The basic law of nature is "to seek
peace and follow it" (Hobbes, 1958: 110), a maxim which in turn, for Hobbes, spawns the other precepts which make that peace a reality. In
accordance with the laws of nature, all [people] men covenant with each other to transfer their "power and strength" (Hobbes, 1958: 142) to a
third person: "I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that you give up
Hobbes believes that it is only when all [people] men
your right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner."
transfer their rights to a sovereign, thereby enabling [the sovereign] him to enforce [its] his will as
law, that the goal of peace will be achieved. Consequently, Hobbes' sovereign is absolute, individual
[people] men retaining only the right to disobey the sovereign if [it] he threatens their self-
preservation; self-preservation is, in the final analysis, the very motivation which impels [people] men
to form a commonwealth and cannot, therefore, be alienated. For Hobbes, then, as Michael Oakeshott (1946: xvi) has
observed, civil society offers the removal of some of the circumstances that, if they are not removed, must frustrate Felicity. It is a negative gift,
merely making not impossible that which is desirable. Here in civil society is neither fulfillment nor wisdom to discern fulfillment, but peace, a
Pax Romana, a tranquilitas.

Only the sovereign can bind ethics and motivate action. Thus the standard is
consistency with the will of the sovereign.
Williams Williams, Michael C. (Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the
University of Ottawa). “Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration.” International Organization,
Volume 50, Number 2, pgs. 218-220. Spring 1996. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2704077. Cho recut from PZ
By themselves, the laws of nature are not enough, not because rational actors cannot trust each other enough to enter into a social contract but because in the
condition of epistemological indeterminacy that Hobbes portrays as natural, this universality is at best a partial step. For even
if all were to agree on
the right to self-preservation, all need not necessarily agree on what comprised threats to that

preservation, how to react to them, or how best to secure themselves against them. Conflict is not simply intrinsic to
humanity's potential for aggression; nor can it be resolved directly through the utilitarian calcula- tions of competing and conflicting

interests. On the contrary, Hobbes believes that the answer lies in recognizing the problem: namely, the inability to resolve objectively the
problem of knowing facts and morals in any straightforward manner. Once this is recognized, the stage is set for

Hobbes's solution, a solution that lies not-as Donald Hanson has argued-in a flight from politics but rather in an appeal to politics.19 Or, put another way,
Hobbes tries to show how rational certainty and skepticism can be paradoxically combined into a solution for politics

and a solution by politics. To escape the state of nature, individuals do not simply alienate their "right to everything" to a political
authority.20 More fundamentally, what is granted to that authority is the right to decide among irresolvably contested

truths: to provide the authoritative criteria for what is and thus to remove people from the state of epistemic
and ethical anarchy that form the basis of the state of nature. Hobbes uses his skepticism both to show the necessity of his solution and to
destroy (what he views as dogmatic) counterclaims to political authority based upon unsupportable (individual) claims to truth. In arguing against what he views as
seditious individual claims against the authority of the sovereign in De Cive, Hobbes puts it in the following way: "the knowledge of good and evil belongs to each
single man. In the state of nature indeed, where every man lives by equal right, and has not by any mutual pacts submitted to the command of others, we have
granted this to be true; nay, [proved it] ... [But in the civil state it is false. For it was shown. . .] that the civil laws were the rules of good and evil, just and unjust,
honest and dishonest; that therefore what the legislator commands, must be held for good, and what he forbids for evil. "21 Earlier in the same work, he phrased
the argument even more unequivocally, noting that since "the opinions of men differ concerning meum and tuum, just and unjust, profitable and
unprofitable, good and evil, honest and dishonest, and the like; which every man esteems according to his own judgment: it belongs to the same chief power to
make some common rules for all men, and to declare them publicly, by which every man may know what may be called his, what another's, what just, what unjust,
what honest, what dishonest, what good, what evel; that is summarily, what is to be done, what to be avoided in our common course of life." It follows that for
Hobbes: "All judgment therefore, in a city, belongs to him who hath the swords; that is, to him who hath the supreme authority."22 These are the fundamental
reasons why the sovereign must be unchallenge- able; to rebel is to return to the subjectively relative claim to know and the conflict that this inevitably entails. They
also explain why the sovereign
ultimately must control language (which defines what is) and clarify Hobbes's repeated stress on the
importance of education
rather than coercion as the essential element in a successful sovereign's rule.23 Interpretive dissent
leads to political dissension and to conflict. In the words of Hobbes's patron, the Earl of Newcastle, "controversy Is a Civil Warr with the
Pen which pulls out the sorde soon afterwards. "24

Outweighs util:
1] Solves skep
A] Relativism – the sovereign can arbitrate their truths as objective which secures
moral certainty
B] Linguistic – obligations are always up to interpretation which means we can never
follow them, like how the bible or constitution are heavily debated on. Surrendering
judgement solves by declaring the sovereign’s interpretation as objectively true.
2] Solves state of nature – infinite violence occurs over attempts to be the creator of
meaning, the sovereign solves by eliminating all disagreements Outweighs under util –
the state of nature is definitionally the epitome of pain.
Now negate.
1 — Military presence is necessary to prevent the State of Nature.
VOA 09 — [Voice of America, 10-31-2009, "Examining America's Role in Global Affairs,"
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-americasrole2006-06-08-voa60/315423.html]

Ever since the United States emerged as the world's sole superpower at the end of the Cold War, its
international role has been scrutinized both and home and abroad. Some critics call the U.S. an imperialist, hegemonic power, while others argue that

it is a defender of global law and order.

Almost four hundred years ago, the

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that peace and security among
human beings are impossible without a government to enforce them.

In his new book, ACase for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the 21st Century, Michael
Mandelbaum, a political analyst at The Johns Hopkins University, writes that in the wake of the Cold War, the United States has

played an important role in maintaining world order. "It offers reassurance. That is, its military presence
suppresses suspicions in Europe and Asia that may otherwise be felt and could lead to unhappy political
outcomes. The United States leads the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous
regimes or groups," says Mandelbaum.

2 — A state loses its claim for sovereignty and becomes illegitimate if it can’t protect
its citizens rights—making intervention permissible.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy ND — [Encyclopedia of Philosophy, N.D., "Military Intervention,
Humanitarian," https://iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/]
Discussions of humanitarian intervention have led to alternative ways of thinking about state
sovereignty. One line of thinking makes sovereignty of a state conditional and contingent (Holder, 89-96). A state has genuine sovereignty
only if it meets minimal moral requirements, such as effective control in maintaining order and security,
or avoiding egregious mistreatment of its people, or, less minimally, reflects the political will of the people
themselves. So, failed or grossly abusive states, for example, have no sovereignty and, thus, an otherwise
justified humanitarian intervention does not violate the target state’s sovereignty. Robert Keohane has proposed
that sovereignty rights need to be seen as separable, so that a state, based on certain criteria, retains some kinds of authority while losing others. Sovereignty rights
can be “unbundled” and they admit of gradations. So, exclusion
of external control over territory may be an authority lost
by a state, but that same state may continue to have some limited domestic authority at the same time.
Third, is a proposal to see sovereignty as states’ responsibility, a kind of duty to protect all people’s human rights. As described in The Responsibility to Protect,
states failing to protect their own citizens’ rights temporarily forfeit sovereignty rights, others’ duties of non-
interference are suspended, and then other states or organizations assume the responsibility to protect persons

by intervening, perhaps even militarily. That sovereignty includes domestic duties to respect and protect peoples’ rights is a feature of classic
social contract theories of state authority, such as by Locke, Kant, or even Hobbes. The proposal, though, controversially maintains that each state’s sovereignty
includes a responsibility to protect not only the rights of its citizens, but the rights of aliens in other lands, a responsibility of “saving strangers.” These alternative
approaches all depart from the letter of international law about qualifying for state sovereignty. They are an extension of a greater emphasis on human rights as
transnational moral norms. Alternative, normative understandings of the modern state show that, under certain conditions, humanitarian interventions are not
violations of sovereignty at all.

Iraq violates human rights.

BOD 22 Bureau Of Democracy, The Bureau of Democracy analyzes human rights violations and works
under the Department of State of the United States, "Iraq," United States Department of State,
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/iraq/ //WTrinh

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including
extrajudicial killings by the government; forced disappearances by the government; torture and cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison
conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment
of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious abuses in a conflict,
including attacks resulting in civilian deaths and harm; serious restrictions on free expression and media,
including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests and prosecutions against
journalists, censorship, and existence of criminal libel laws; serious restrictions on internet freedom;
substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; restrictions
on freedom of movement of women; forced returns of internally displaced persons to locations where
they faced threats to their lives and freedom; threats of violence against internally displaced persons
and returnee populations perceived to have been affiliated with ISIS; serious government corruption;
lack of investigation and accountability for gender-based violence; crimes involving violence targeting
members of ethnic minority groups; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex persons; significant restrictions on worker freedom of
association; and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.

Syria violates human rights.

SNHR 23, The Syrian Network of Human Rights reports on the conditions of human rights in Syria,
SNHR’s 12th Annual Report: Most Notable Human Rights Violations in Syria in 2022 [EN/AR],"
https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/snhrs-12th-annual-report-most-notable-human-rights-
violations-syria-2022-enar //WTrinh
As the 163-page report explains, the escalating impact of human rights violations over the past 12 years
has made for a catastrophic state of human rights in Syria. Violations of human rights include, inter alia,
killing, arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance, forced displacement, seizure of lands and
properties, and rampant security instability that have provided a ripe environment for many
assassinations and bombings, with all these violations still being documented in Syria. The report
stresses that, due to these violations, which threaten the very core of the rights and dignity of the
human being, with no end in sight or any concrete means of holding the perpetrator accountable yet
available, hundreds of thousands of Syrians continue to sell their properties, flee their lands and seek
asylum around the world. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Syrians now in exile will not even
consider returning to Syria in the current conditions, while even those who remain in Syria are searching
for a way out, due to the fact that Syria has become a unhabitable country with no regard for even the
most basic human rights; this in turn has taken a heavy toll on the economy which has plummeted to
even worse depths compared only to last year. Syria has been rated as one of the world’s worst
countries in regard to basic human rights.

Bahrain violates human rights.

Amnesty International 22, Amnesty International is a NGO dedicated to reporting on human rights
violations, "Human rights in Bahrain," https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-
africa/bahrain/report-bahrain/ //WTrinh

Prisoners were tortured and subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment, including medical neglect,
delays in medical treatment as reprisal and denial of contact with family members. Authorities
continued to restrict freedoms of expression and assembly and to hold prisoners for exercising these
rights. The government did not adequately protect migrant workers from exploitation or take adequate
steps to address the climate crisis. The government tightened access to healthcare for stateless children.
Torture and other ill-treatment At least six prisoners were tortured and otherwise ill-treated during the
year. In February, Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed told the Office of Public Prosecution’s Special Investigation
Unit (SIU), the agency that investigates government abuses, that Jaw prison guards had beaten him
when he was forcibly deported from Serbia to Bahrain on 24 January. The SIU told the UN that it was
investigating the allegation, but did not report any results. In March, authorities moved Ahmed Jaber
Ahmed to an external hospital only after 11 months of illness had left him unable to walk or dress
himself. The hospital diagnosed tuberculosis that had spread to his spinal column, requiring that he be
put in a halo brace. Denial of medical care can be considered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. In May, AbdAli Khayer, a Jaw inmate imprisoned on terrorism charges in a mass trial,
said in a voice-recorded call from the prison that when he told a guard he needed treatment at the
prison clinic for painful gout that was making it difficult for him to stand, the guard responded by
beating him with his fists.
Affirmative teams must not read new warrants for the 1AC standard, a new rob, or
new frwks, in the 1AR –
[a] Strat Skew- justifies sandbagging till the 1ar – leads to late breaking debates that
increase judge intervention bc of 2ar spin, moots 1nc framework clash, and decreases
the amount of time to clash frwks
[b] Moving Target- it’s the burden of the aff to weigh to prove the resolution true
under a frwk – no way for me disprove you if you change the frwk warrants – creates
irreciprocal in round burdens and unbeatable strats
[c] Turns Solve- If you can’t defend the 1AC Frwk then turn the nc offence