A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

The order is going to be the negative case followed by refutation of the affirmative. Framework: I accept my opponent's definition of rights. However, I would like to highlight that law, tradition and nature all serve as sufficient but unnecessary criteria for satisfying a right. That being said, it is only the burden of the con to prove the existence of a right in any sense of the word, not in every one. For the purposes of this debate I will be claiming a right to secession that is derived from natural law. Natural Law is defined by Britannica (1) as: a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. We are going to prefer my framework because morality is the ultimate source of justifications for our actions. Christine Korsgaard (2) elaborates,"[W]e must value our moral nature as what I call a form of practical identity, a description under which we value ourselves and find our lives worth living. I claimed that our moral identity, which I took to be equivalent to our human identity, is the ultimate source of reasons, because the moral law is the ultimate source of justification - a consideration must be capable of being embodied in a universalizable maxim if it is to count as a reason at all. So if we are to have any reasons, or to see anything as being valuable, we must value and identify with our nature as moral beings. "Contention 1: Moral Autonomy Allows for Secession. G. A. Cohen argues (3),"[E]ach person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not deploy them aggressively against others" (pg. 67).1. States have the power to secede.2. States have the right use their powers peacefully. Thus, states have the right to secede peacefully. Therefore I urge a Con ballot. Onto the affirmative case. Overview: The affirmative only argues on the basis of positive law. It is the burden of the negative to only prove the existence of a right in one of the three forms outlined by my opponent's definition: legal, traditional, and natural. Therefore even if my opponent's arguments are all true you still negate, given that mine are as well. It is possible not to have a legal right but to simultaneously have a natural right to do something. Furthermore, the status of the federal government is irrelevant to natural law, which is to say that none of my opponent's arguments apply to my framework. That being said, my arguments against the affirmative will be using his legal framework, proving why I win under either framework.1. Federalism is the system of shared powers between the state and federal governments. My opponent is arguing under a misconception. States do not give up their sovereignty when joining the Union, but rather submit to a greater sovereign. This does not imply the slavery of states. * We are 50 pieces bonded together to form a country. The fact that we are unified just shows that the bond is present, not non-existent. Both (-)s: Neither of these deny the right to secede. * The federal government allowed for state charters when forming the states which gave them the right to their land and citizens. Hence, the thievery argument is false.2. * Not using a right does not deny its existence. * This does not deny the existence of a right. - After secession they are no longer the federal government's citizens.3. Turn: Both articles claim that the right exists. Just because certain circumstances must be met does not mean this is not true. His argument 3 proves why you negate under his framework. (1) . http://www.britannica.com...(2) Valuing our Humanity. Christine M. Korsgaard. Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University(3) Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. G. A. Cohen. Cambridge UP 1995