NCFL LD topic 2010

Value debate- "My value of morality stands, as the documents our government, and our whole nation, must abide by all include one core principle of morality. " As the affirmative (Pro), she has the burden of proof. She has given no evidece of Morality being our core principle. "The laws and rules included in these doctrines stem from justice, and justice stems from morality. " C stems from B and B from A. But wheres the proof? Wheres is the actual link? The arguments matter because her only defense is that "Morality MUST stand" because it's a core principle. It's ot as a matter of fact, and she has no evidence, but even if proven, it doesn't matter because she doesn't prove that the governmet has a moral agecy. She saids that I cocede to it. Yeah, my bad. But just because I'm wrong too doesn't make her right. Since she has no reason the government does have a moral agecy, then they don't. Drop her value and criterio, and drop my sentence about moral agency. Even if she could PROVE that my value is a prerequisite to hers, in this debate it doesn't matter because morality has no place in this round. Criterion- "My criterion, then, must also stand, because Minimization of Dehumanization is one of the most important moral obligations the US government has to meet. My opponent's criterion, Government Legitimacy, must be dropped because without a value it cannot be linked to anything, as my opponent has pointed out. " Well if we are goig by the values, once agai drop her criterion and adopt mine. Also, extend objectivism arguement she drops. First point- "Faithfulness to our founding documents and international agreements. This includes the Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. As my opponent brought up earlier, all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. ". .. recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. .. " [UNudhr]" Well, this doesn't have any effect in her rebuttal because she just repeats her contention. No analysis. Also, yes everyone has inalienable rights, but that doesn't include the right to vote. Second point- "Respect for humanity [or minimization of dehumanization] "To dehumanize is to make somebody feel "less than human. " To afford certain rights to group A, and not to group B, is to make group B feel lesser than group A, and this is not moral. John Locke's Social Contract tells us, for lack of a better term, to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. To treat somebody as less than yourself, you are treating them as less than human, which, again, is immoral. So in minimizing dehumanization, we are achieving morality, the value to which you must look to in this round. " [1AR] (It is 1AR, right? Hahah) My opponent says that group B may not be worthy of humanization. First off, we must see that, even if group B is an unpopular group, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights all tell us that all people are afforded certain inalienable rights. We must remain faithful to these doctrines, and therefore, have a moral obligation to afford these rights to all people on US soil. " Just to shoot down this whole argument, just know that everyone has inalienable rights, but those don't include the right to vote. My Case- "My opponent says that illegal immigrants are a problem because they don't pay taxes and take advantage of public services, however, according to MSNBC "In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job. " and since 1996, more than 11 million ITIN's (Individual Tax Identification Numbers) have been issued to illegal foreigners, so that they may be recognized as taxpayers. We must see that illegal immigrants, yes, are obviously here illegally, however, most abide by our laws, find work, pay taxes at higher rates than public service usage, and my opponent lists this as the only burden that illegal immigrants put on our nation. Without immigrants causing this trouble, we must see, they're not doing any harm. " If you check, you will see that this is new evidence brought into the 4th round. So just throw that out of the debate. Social contract- For clarification, whether or not we provide them the rights means nothing. The question is, is it our moral obligation? No, because they have not agreed to our social contract, thus no obligation exists between that man or woman and government. Summary- So far, The Con has won the social contract argument because since they have not agreed to it, there is no "moral obligation", as the resolution calls for. Extend objectivism argument. Extend the value and criterion to the Con side. Both sides have provided clash. Illegal immigrants are a harm to America, extend that. Thanks for the great responses. =).