Sept/Oct LD Resolution

Deconstruction Point one (points 1, 2, and 3 presumably value clash) **Note: Point one was indiscernible and a syntactic hell. Please disregard this point. Point two “The part of his case bothers me…this makes natural rights seem like they are not universal when they are.” I am not disputing that natural rights are universal. They are. Remember, however that the United States is the agent in this resolution. Regardless of whether or not natural rights are universal, it is not the responsibility of the United States government to make sure that everyone in the entire world is receiving justice. It’s not even its responsibility to give justice to those who come into its jurisdiction providing they are not citizens. This is because the government has one absolute purpose only, being to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Surprisingly, my opponent has not contested this within the whole of our debate, nor has he addressed it. Therefore, please flow this concept of the purpose of government through the round. Point three and the Value Criterion Clash “My opponent assumes the USA can't protect themselves and uphold the constitution and Geneva convention.” My opponent misunderstands the argument. United States can protect itself while upholding the constitution, but that doesn’t mean it should, nor does it mean that while doing so it does not take some risk of national security. As I mentioned in my rebuttal to “point two,” government has only one purpose that is absolutely justified. This purpose is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Because it is obsolete without its citizens, the government must strain to protect that which constitutes it, the citizens. If it has not done that, it has failed. 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. Contention One “John locke, mark argument as some what irrelevant, as my opponent still believes that we can't protect ourselves and uphold natural rights aka the constitutions for terrorists. Lockes idea can be upheld with due process for terrorists.” This rebuttal is absurd. Firstly, it offers no explanation whatsoever for the statements it provides. My opponent wishes you to accept his rebuttal without any justification for its assertion. Please disregard this rebuttal. Secondly, I would simply like to make it clear that Locke’s argument which I have explained predominantly in the first contention of my constructive case, entirely upholds my argument. Locke argues that the one role of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. This, for obvious reasons, is not irrelevant to my case. Contention two “Well that's the thing he assumes they are such a threat that even captured and put to trial they will kill everyone Oh no scary scary terrorist in shackles and behind bars is going to kill everyone. They won't its obscured to think this way.” I’ve already addressed this. As I stated before, 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. Defense Firstly, my opponent begins by arguing the subjectivity of morality in order to prove the legitimacy of any given government action. This is simply untrue. Nothing is right just because one person or country says it is. Furthermore, this contradicts my opponent’s assertion in his “point two rebuttal” that natural rights are universal. If a government can make it constitutional that all rape is legal, then they can also decree that none of their citizens have natural rights. Because his ideas contradict each other, neither can stand. Secondly, my opponent again argues governmental legitimacy. “A government is illegitimate if it acts outside the restrictions its made for itself. That's just common sense, If I go and sign a contract not to talk to people, but I do anyway its usually a crime or wrong to do so. This is the US it was built with restrictions on each branch in mind.” Continuing my opponent’s comparison of a contract, I would like to point out the flaw in this argument. If I break a contract I have made with someone, that does not make me illegitimate. The government that acts outside of the restrictions it has made for itself has broken a contract, but still is a government, just as a person is still a person after having broken that same contract. Thirdly, “For one if we must do this to be a legitimate government don't you think we should or ought to achieve it?” This argument is not essential to my case, however, to answer my opponent’s query, depending on how you define “ought” this point is relevant. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, for example, defines it as a moral obligation. It should be fairly obvious to my opponent that while I must become a cannibal to survive on a desert island, perhaps I should not if morality dictates it. At any rate, I need not pursue this topic to negate the resolution. Moreover, while this was a mere weakness in his value, my opponent has others that I will address later. Lastly, “I disagree with my opponent that the social contract can be applied to my government as well, the only difference my opponent believes a government can be evil immoral thing which it can't under what my opponents locke.” What opponent fails to understand is that his own case is based entirely upon a social contract that includes the government; namely, the constitution, which is a social contract with the people. Additionally, I have never argued that a government can be a “evil, immoral thing.” My only argument was that the government has a role of safeguarding the natural rights of its citizens, and it ought not go further in its action than fulfilling that purpose, a purpose that Locke upholds. Where I clash with my opponent’s social contract argument (constitutionality) is that the building blocks upon which a country is built may not necessarily be right, in this case, they may compromise the safety of its citizens. This being the case, it is wrong for the government not to step outside these bounds, for if it does not, it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens, its one purpose. And without achieving this one purpose, the government becomes non-existent, for a government is nothing without the people that comprise it. Therefore if the resolution is not negated, government loses its legitimacy. Voting Issues I defeated my opponent’s point that the government becomes illegitimate when stepping outside of the bounds of its constitution fully justified why a government is unable to be legitimate if the resolution is affirmed. Because his entire case revolves around the point, his case necessarily falls. My opponent never directly addressed one of the most essential points to my debate which is the point on the limited responsibility of the government. Please flow this point through the debate. Lastly, and most importantly, a word on the value clash. While I have clearly upheld my value and explained why it is the most important concept in this debate. With his value, however, my opponent has done no such thing. He has not explained why “governmental legitimacy” is what we should value above all else in this debate. And in fact, it should not be. A value must be a legitimate end in and of itself; justice, for example is something that should be achieved for its own sake. Governmental legitimacy does not even have the ability to be achieved for its own sake and therefore cannot be a valid value in this debate. It simply does not challenge the intrinsic virtue of natural rights and the pursuit of those rights.