RESOLVED: In society the common good should be valued over the individual's interest

**Thanks for accepting the debate and good luck, I hope since this is my first debate I still make a challenging match** Intro: The resolution: "In society the common good should be valued over the individual's interest" Does not include the term Democracy anywhere. Since your entire case is based on Democratic principles, I believe it to be wise to rethink your arguments. Definitions: I forgot to provide definitions in R1, so here are some so that the resolution will be clarified. Society - a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members http://dictionary.reference.com... Common good - the good of a community http://dictionary.reference.com... Valued - highly regarded or esteemed http://dictionary.reference.com... Individual - a single human being, as distinguished from a group http://dictionary.reference.com... Interest - concern; importance http://dictionary.reference.com... Please note if you agree or disagree with these definitions. My Case: A society, by definition, must value certain rights in order to maintain its populous. These are protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members. If these are to be maintained, a commonly accepted approach must be embraced. If a society is undecided in its national defense approach (i.e. military) then the security, protection, and because of those national identity and continuity are all jeopardized. This is why the majority of the society's populous, which inherently represent the common good, should be valued over the rest of the populous. My opponent's case: "The problem with your philosophy is that you don't acknowledge the fact that the common interest can and most likely will oppress the minority" You do have a valid point, yet in a perfect society the minority is wrong. Do not confuse this resolution with a worldly entity, we are debating a true society. The populous of a society, due to every individual having different wants, will obviously have mixed views. When a decision is to be made, however, the majority of the people should be valued over the others. This is because if the society is to concern its obligations, it must value the more popular decision, as the agreeing with the minority would offer security and protection for less constituents. "...it may be the common interest's decision to enslave the minority for the sake of the common good. This enslavement may be for the benefit of society, but how can anybody honestly embrace that decision?" Again, valid point, yet the common good will not be embraced by that decision. For example, a nation has 60% "A" people and 40% "B" people. If the 60% of the people want to enslave the other 40% of the people, then civil war would erupt and the society would jeopardize its security and identity. This would inherently not benefit the common good because the society is enslaving its own populous. "...individual interest will invariably benefit society as a whole" In certain situations that could work, yet in most situations will result in anarchy. For example, five people are trying to become the leader of a society. One man kills the other four to insure his individual interest, becoming leader of the society, is maintained. This would do sufficient harm to the common good of the society as the most popular candidate may have been killed. Another example, a farm owner, a meat manufacturing plant owner, and a grocery store owner are all attempting to succeed in society. If they acknowledged the common good of society, they would continue to play their role and allow the meat to reach the end-user on an efficient basis. If the they acknowledged only their self-interest, they would request additional compensation. The farm would ask more from the plant for his cow. Then the plant would ask more from the grocery store in order to compensate for the new costs. Then the grocery store would ask more from the consumer in order to compensate for the new costs. Even worse, these links in this one economical chain could very well activate a strike and discontinue production. In the end, the populous suffers. Vote Pro because my opponent lacks reasoning why the common good should be hindered due to the individual's wants. **Good luck on your next response**