When forced to choose, a just government . . . (see text for full resolution)

N1. Consider the resolution: "A cautious person should shun the frumious Bandersnatch." (ref: Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem, Jabberwocky. http://www.jabberwocky.com...) I would object that that resolution should not be passed because it has no defined meaning. The rebuttal in Pro's line of thinking is "It doesn't matter that no one knows what a frumious bandersnatch is. The debate is not about that. A cautious person would figure out what to be cautious of and then shun it." No, because we cannot tell if the bandersnatch ought to shunned at all until we know what it is. Similarly, we cannot resolve to prioritize human rights until we know what is to be prioritized. The resolution does not say what universal human rights are, but it does tell us who will determine it. Government will decide. So Kim Jong-Il will be obliged to press his version of human rights, and every other country will be obliged to press their versions. Pro argues that a "just" government will correctly identify human rights. There are no governments on earth who meet the criteria of knowing human rights with certainty, so perhaps we are debating governments in the Kingdom of Heaven? That makes no sense. The resolution cannot be assuming that, because as an academic topic we have a right to assume the debate concerns the real world. The resolution must be asserting "A government that attempts to be just will prioritize advancing it's concept of human rights above advancing the interests of its people." It cannot prioritize anything other than its concept of human rights, because there is no general agreement otherwise. C1. Pro says, "The resolution states that the government is forced to choose between human rights and national interest. Thus, by necessity, if you negate the resolution then the government must ignore human rights concerns in favor of national interest." Let's simplify the resolution to "If forced to choose between A and B, government must choose B." The negation is "If forced to choose between A and B, government need not choose B." The operative verb phase in the original resolution is "must choose." Negating that is "not (must choose)" or "need not choose." Another way to think about it is the resolution is a call to action to do something. If the resolution fails, then we go on doing whatever we have been doing rather than what the resolution says. What we have been doing is sometimes putting the pursuit of human rights ahead of national interest and other times not. Pro argues that sometimes pursuing human rights is consistent with self-interest. I agree. That is most often the case. However, the debate is about the cases when self-interest and human rights causes are not aligned. The US had scant self-interest in pressing human rights in Bosnia, for example, but chose to do so. C2. Pro claimed, "A just government has the duty to ensure that these universal human rights do become truly universal." Pro cited as evidence that the Declaration of Independence claims certain rights to be universal. My refutation was that asserting rights to be universal does not imply that government must always prioritize expanding human rights over self-interest. The Declaration of Independence obviously referred to the right of a people to assert their rights within their country. The Founders would certainly have supported Nigerians asserting their rights in Nigeria and Chinese asserting their rights in China, both on the grounds that rights were universal. However, nothing in the Declaration of Independence suggests that the United States ought to prioritize advancing right overseas above the interests of the people of the United States. I cited the principle of "government ... for the people" as evidence that serving the people of the country should be taken as the longstanding priority. To refute my claim, Pro should offer evidence that the Founders intended that the government of the United States should advance universal rights as a priority above serving the people of the United States. Separately I asserted that "forced to choose" in the resolution means no more than that there is always an opportunity o devote resources either to the well-being of the country or to the advancement of universal human rights. Pro did not dispute that interpretation. Resources expended saving Bosnia or Nigeria are not spent supporting the people of the United States. Pro cites the French, "The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man." As with the Declaration of Independence, this says that people form governments to preserve their rights, and that they are entitled to do so. America is not in "political association" with Nigeria. There is no mandate to give priority to Nigerian interests. N2. Pro asserts that the resolution only allows government to either always choose self-interest or to always choose to advance universal human rights. I refuted that in N1. If the resolution fails, then we keep on operating as a republic as we always have. Only if it passes are we forced to operate with government empowered to act contrary to the will of the people. It's important for all the leaders of democratic governments watching the outcome of this debate to know that if the resolution fails they can keep on operating democratically. If it passes, they must convert to a government that independently pursues human rights as it's priority, regardless of popular will. We have a heavy responsibility here at DDO. N3. I claimed that there is a moral responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. The resolution subordinates self-interest to sacrificing for the sake of others. Pro counters that there are no grounds for my assertion of morality, and that since morality is such a difficult subject the claim should be discounted. Let us suppose that moral claims should be discounted in this debate. If so, what is the basis for asserting universal human rights above self-interest? The basis cannot be a practical one, because self-interest is the practical side of the argument. Pro is instigator, proponent, and affirming, so by all accounts he bears the burden of proof. There is nothing but the moral claim supporting Pro's argument for the resolution. Dismissing moral claims as unprovable therefore dismisses the case for the resolution. I claim the the moral obligation to protect one's family is self-evident. Pro cited the Declaration of Independence, which held that certain moral assertions were "self evident." The founders called it "natural law," meaning that it is observable from the nature of man. (The founders were Deists and believed that God's will could only be determined by observation, rather than, say, revelation.) It is easier to observe that people have a moral responsibility to their families than to observe that "all men are created equal." It takes some intellectual insight to conclude that people who do not appear equal really should be equal before the law. But virtually everyone in every society recognizes the responsibility to care for family. If you still doubt this, you can ask Sarah Palin. ========== One problem with the resolution is that it only asserts universal rights in general, but leaves it to government to decide in particular for what they must crusade. A second problem is that is always puts the rights crusade ahead of self-interest. If the resolution said, "Nations should make some sacrifices to advance the universal right of free speech." then I would affirm it. It does not do that. It resolves that government must always place an undefined quest for universal rights above self-interest. That empowers Kim Il-Jong to pursue his concept of rights as much as it empowers anyone else. The resolution is negated.