Contracts Preflow 1

PreFW
Presume aff since a. over thinking about the validity of actions would paralyze us from acting, and b. Affirming is harder, as proven by the 7% neg bias1 on a sample size of over 30 thousand rounds, so you assume I did the better debating if were equal.

lack of obligation affirms bc normative obligations are fulfilled by sufficient reasons which can be met by a lack of a counter-reason. Also, default is rehab since a) retribution is deserved punishment, and b) we arent sure that criminals are guilty so it is better to avoid punishing an innocent
Next, Prefer reasonable AFF interps since I speak first and therefore have interpretive leeway. Moreover, its impossible to pick a perfect interp, so if the neg presents a better one dont drop me; rather let us debate under his interpretation since its more unfair to drop me on face,

Extend that only aff gets RVIs. (I meet and terminal defense/ drop the argument.) 1) neg could overwhelm; checks back strategic tool. 2) time skew: theory takes a lot of time to answer. And, nc is reactive. Also, 3) neg cant get RVIs because they have a 13-7 minute advantage on theory. Extend, that the neg must provide me the opportunity to concede to theory or T violations in cx or prep time. 1) prevent unnecessary theory and allow me to retify abuse. 2) avoid ambiguity in norm creation and encourage substantive debate. 3) conflicting shells means I always violate.

And, rules of logic would demand that if we deny the antecedent of a premise, then the statement as a whole is trivially held to be true

Contracts Preflow 2

FW:
I value morality. 1) judgements about absolute good are only premised on a predetermined notion of the good. Wittgenstein: absolute obligations dont exist. (subjective) An absolute good is incoherent since it requires motivation to follow it even though it is inconsistent with the ends of individuals. Also, any individuals can always question why they should follow an absolute good and choose to ignore.
Thus, the only way for morality to exist and unify everyones different subjective conception is to codify the law and create one objective, uncontestable law. Laws are by nature a compilation of relative end goals of individuals. This also mandates that the US look to international laws whenever possible because international law compiles more relative opinions in order to create a better norm.

2) emotivist: Explanations of truth claims must be simplified in order to eliminate arbitrary information that is false. Arbitrary information grants the explainer the license to make up false data Ayer: all ethical claims are merely stating peoples disapproval with an action, not that it is ethically wrong. Saying you acted wrongly is merely evincing moral disapproval.
Contracts are the best system under an emotivist sytem because a) it reduces statements of sentiment to statements of fact that can be verified through empirical legal standards. A contract is inherently a system of compiling and recording multiple dispositions, and b) laws dont need to refer to some moral rules that we lack the faculties to understand. Additionally, this justifies following international law first since it takes into account more peoples inclinations. 3) Morality must be able to guide action. Legal contracts are the only moral system that can guide action because they tell us exactly what to do through codified, explicit norms. Also, any rule is subject to a problem of interpretation since there are indefinitely many possible interpretations. The problem is that trying to solve this requires the use of a different interpretation, which is infinitely regressive. Moral norms require an objective rule in order to be applied because we need an external judge to tell us whether our implementation of

Contracts Preflow 3
certain norms is correct- otherwise, actions would be self-justifying and thus unjustified. Laws dont need to be objective in order to contain the same normative force because a) the state can just decide which interpretation to follow since it is a higher authority that posses the legislative and executive power to implement it, and b) alternate laws dont affect the legal standing of other laws. And, this also provides a reason to be consistent with international law since the justification for following arbitrary norms is that it comes from the highest authority.

4) A governments identity is defined by its

consistency with laws. The US government would still be the US government if the people in it changed, but it would no longer be the US government if the whole structure of legal norms changed. This has a few implications: a) the United States is motivated to be consistent with laws because by willing to follow laws it wills the consistency of itself, b) legal obligations are the primary function of governments because the only reason we have governments is so they can establish, enforce, and follow laws, and c) if the government is inconsistent with its laws then it is no longer a government, denying an assumption in the resolution. Also, legal contracts are motivational for governments since they would seek to avoid violating laws because it will make them seem illegitimate in front of their citizens and the international arena. And, If ethics arent motivational, then morality would devolve into nihilism since individuals could always question maxims applicability. And, even if the government is reducible to individuals then it would still be motivated since the individuals who are in the government are still bound to laws, so they would seek to avoid violating laws so as not to go to jail. Additionally, Legal contracts have the most real world applicability since otherwise the moral thing to do might be something illegal, which would devolve morality into a contradiction. if moral obligations are impossible to derive, are incoherent, or fail to generate obligatory actions, then you default back to legal obligations because a) the government must always be able to take an action and have explicit guidance, b) the resolution presupposes that obligations exist as per the word ought and the particular obligationwe must default to another evaluative mechanism if the first one fails, and c) governments are created to fulfill multiple different obligations towards citizens and other nations, so they still have some obligations even if their moral ones fail. If morality is incoherent, the only legitimate obligations that the government has left are its legal obligations.

S: consistency with legal agreements-international

Contracts Preflow 4

CONTENTIONS
1) Rotman1: Three acticles of customary international law: the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, The ICCPR, and the American Convention of Human Rights Prefer International: a) largest in scope: 190 countries b) most widely accepted as authority, part of US identity c) obligations must be mutually consistent by international laws. Lack of international law means no obligations. And, in the case of contradictory contracts that are irresolvable, the government is both obligated and prohibited from taking an action. This does not disprove the ethical theory but rather indicates that either action is permissible because there is no morally stronger justification to do one over the other. if contracts are impossible to derive or are badthen no prohibition bc they are the only codified legal distinctions outlining state action.

2) US A) Rotman2: constitution based on equal protection B) Rotman3: customary international law is binding
And, this means aff is the status quo since legal arguments inform the governments value system. Since existing laws dictate that we favor rehabilitation, the government is currently valuing rehabilitation higher. This is also evident in the gradual shift to rehabilitation methods throughout the country. Thus, the neg is a deviation from the status quo as it mandates that current policy be changed and our actions towards universal healthcare be shifted. This means both the aff is an omission but also that permissibility goes aff since we wouldnt shift from the squo unless we were obligated to; this is true since: A. The state doesnt waste resources by taking actions that derivate from the squo since it would prevent the state from using those resources to fulfill authentic obligations B. Shifting from the status quo poses unnecessary risks to the state as we dont know what horrific things can happen. Thus, unless there is a proactive reason to shift from the squo, the state is obligated not to do so.

Contracts Preflow 5

Underview A) IEER: Effective commitment to

international law is necessary to check extinctionUS commitment uniquely key.

B) Perm affirms
1) Merriam Webster defines ought as used to express moral rightness. Thus, lack of a prohibition proves that we ought to take the action since we default to actions being right. To do otherwise would make actions that have no moral bearing such as breathing morally wrong. 2) it compensates for aff structural skew through the NC time skew and reactivity. The only topics where the side bias balances out are topics that say morally permissible. 3) Permissibility is only consistent with obligations because an obligation necessarily entails permissibility, but a prohibition denies permissibility. Therefore, permissibility would be contradictory to the neg burden, but it could be true in conjunction to the aff burden. 4) Negation means, refusing consent, as to a proposal so negating the resolution denies the possibility of acting.