September/October LD Resolution

Deconstruction There are few relevant points in my opponent’s rebuttal, very much because he has not addressed nor upheld the most important aspect of the debate and my rebuttal, his value; therefore my final rebuttal will be brief. Value and Value Criterion I have three points to make in contention with my opponent’s rebuttal to my rebuttal of case. But before I do this, I would like to make the point that my opponent does not clash with my value clash. We must assume, therefore, that he concedes to my analysis of his value; namely, that he has five, and in having these five, also concedes to my observation. That, “Because they are all his value, and he fails to achieve all (according to my opponent, if he provides for the common defense he cannot establish objective justice) his values contradict each other, causing the whole to fall. Therefore, in the course of the debate, if I am able to prove that, as pertains to this resolution, if one value is upheld only at the expense of another, my opponent’s case necessarily falls.” 1. “It is unreasonable to assume that the Constitution is not primarily intended for the United States citizens.” My opponent chooses to make this statement without any justification for its validity. As I stated in my constructive case, the fourteenth amendment of constitution reads, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Any person clearly indicates non-citizens as well as citizens, and as my opponent has not provided proof of the arbitrary claims he makes, you may not accept this statement.2. “Subsequently, it is reasonably to believe that the Federal government should always put national interestsas their top priority and should be advised to actively pursue it.” A government’s national interest is justice. A country devoid of justice is not a legitimate government, for justice, giving each his or her due, is the fundamental and intrinsic right of every human. And it is people who make up the government. I would also like to address that I am not assuming the universality of justice. For an explanation, please refer to my constructive case. I will not address this again. The main point of my opponent's contention one is that “By granting the rights enjoyed by the United States citizens to the accused aliens, the Federal government will have to spend the money that originally reserved to its people on trying the accused aliens, and such an activity may potentially harm the general welfare of its citizens.” What my opponent does not understand is that justice is the highest value of any society, and trumps economic national interest. This is so because if justice is not upheld within a society, and I have already proven why it would be just to give terrorists due process protections, and my opponent agreed with this in his first rebuttal, then the citizens of that country are worse off. Citizens within a country must have justice in order to fulfill their natural function. Fairness is a prerequisite, and if a government does not provide it universally to those who come into its jurisdiction, there is no reason to suppose that the government will provide it to its citizens. Furthermore, national security is not threatened. Justice in providing for a fair trial actually ensures national security. Again, my opponent agrees that it would be just to offer these accused terrorists due process protections. He states, “I believe that being the world only super sower [power], the United States do have the rights and the obligations to advocate Democracy, administrate Justice, and fight for the Human Rights whenever and wherever it is possible as long as the manner of conducts is compatible with national interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that by granting the accused aliens the constitutional rights is a step to encourage the Democracy and Human Rights. The procedure, if enforced, however, would present formidable practical difficulties.” My opponent’s entire case revolves around this idea that while it may be just to give terrorists due process protections it denies citizens economical and national security benefits. In his rebuttal he has not upheld his case in any way. The concept of economic benefits and national security are not legitimate ends in themselves. A value must be a legitimate end in and of itself; justice, for example is something that should be achieved for its own sake. Furthermore, please refer to my former rebuttal as I explain why his value is contradictory. This point, having not been addressed stands.By conceding the rebuttal to his value, my opponent has also acknowledged the observation and by doing so, has accepted the standing contradictions in his case. Without a standing value, his case falls.