Sept/Oct LD Resolution

My attack: Point 2 : My opponent says the that the whole idea of a government is to protect its citizens, I have no reason to contest this. However, my opponent admits that the US can protect its citizens and give due process. This is the point of my argument that we have an obligation to give due process due to the Constitution. For a government to remain legitimate it must uphold its laws, its own restrictions. Or it is no long a legitimate government. Even thought these terrorists are not citizens we still have the obligation. Why? Because under the Geneva convention it is illegal for a government to take POW's. One might say oh they are not POW's they are more like criminals. Foreign criminals are given due process in the US all the time or deported to their own country for it. If this is the case why are terrorists different? The US is acting in a illegitimate way when it allows due process for certain foreign criminals and kills or detains them without due process. If terrorists were an extreme threat in which kill or be killed that's called self defense but that's not the case. If we capture a terrorist they deserve due process. My opponents idea is kill or we die, not the case therefore we ought to remain legitimate and give them due process. 3. No my opponent misunderstands what I am trying to say, a government must uphold its own tapestry, building blocks in which it was made to remain legitimate. What "risk" am I putting citizens through by giving capture terrorists due process? Exactly. " A person accused of terrorism is the threat of a terroristic action, and must be treated as such in order to ensure national security. Furthermore, because the government of the United States is not obligated to ensure the rights of a non-citizen, the negation of this resolution is permissible." Refer back to first attack. "Because under the Geneva convention it is illegal for a government to take POW's. One might say oh they are not POW's they are more like criminals. Foreign criminals are given due process in the US all the time or deported to their own country for it. If this is the case why are terrorists different? The US is acting in a illegitimate way when it allows due process for certain foreign criminals and kills or detains them without due process. If terrorists were an extreme threat in which kill or be killed that's called self defense but that's not the case. If we capture a terrorist they deserve due process." Contention 1: Argue that my point was Locke's contract is still upheld even if we give due process to terrorist, citizens are protected and the terrorists have due process. Harm to citizens: zero. Contention 2 : Again refer to value points 2 and 3. And yeah terrorist should be treated like criminals cause they are you already agreed to that in my observations. However, criminals get due process under the constitution. We must follow the Constitution to remain legitimate. Defense: Firstly: No my opponent you misunderstood, in my example this government could have not believed in natural rights. Doesn't matter, morality is determined by the person what this fake government believes is right is right to them. But maybe the example was to extreme instead of rape lets say everyone can only speak in song. The idea of the example was to explain that unjust governments don't really exist cause each society believes differently. The only thing that mattered is if they upheld their own restrictions. The only government that can uphold both natural rights and government legitimacy is the US,UK, any country that has natural rights. in this debate we are looking at the US. The example, again was only to explain that in my case it doesn't matter if they uphold natural rights however in this resolution you can uphold both. Secondly: In a government if you break the rules of itself to remain that government your illegitimate. thirdly: dropped. Lastly: my citizens by giving confined criminals due process, my opponent still never gave this immediate danger that terrorist have in jail or every where they go apparently, to put them in danger my cases doesn't even break his contract and upholds mine. He also argue the constitution of other governments may not be right, we are not talking about other governments. Other governments my not uphold locke but they do uphold mine. I still achieve my purpose. Voters: 1. Terrorists are criminals, under the US constitution they deserve due process, therefore to remain legitimate in my case they ought or must up hold it. 2. My case upholds his as well as long as the US is concerned.