The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

Now, to finish this: 1-. Some Texans don't believe that they have the right to secede. My opponent claims that only the people can decide what is just. I shall agree with this. However, he then claims that just one dissenting voice makes the entire process unjust, no matter what arguments are used by either side. I find this ridiculous. That would mean that anything that anybody disagrees with unjust. Helping the poor, according to the most radical social Darwinists, would be unjust. Funding a church, according to some atheists, would be unjust. It does not matter what people claim is just and unjust. What matters is the arguments that they use. Currently, I have three contentions not refuted that support the notion that secession would be just. My opponent, however, only has his own dissenting voice. My opponent criticizes my mentioning of the Texas Constitution's piece on the inalienable right to change the government. However, his criticism doesn't make logical sense. He claims that the resolution does not talk about government, but people, making my point somehow invalid. This is nonsensical, and ought to be ignored. 2+. Rights aren't real. My opponent has gone in more detail into his arguments, so I shall respond to them accordingly. a. Rights must be chosen by agent My opponent claims that something must be judged before it can be considered "just. " However, "just" means "having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason" [1]. If there exists nobody to evaluate the statement 2+2=4 to true, does that mean that 2+2=4 is false? No, it doesn't. Two plus two has always equaled four, since before man existed. b. Everything holds "laws" My opponent claims that "everything we HAVE discovered is bonded to very strict rules of nature. " However, have we observed ourselves not to have choice? My thoughts certainly don't feel very restricted in any way. My opponent's conclusion that he lacks choice presupposes that we have observed ourselves without choice; this is clear circular reasoning, a logical fallacy that makes his entire postulate worthless. c. Specific attributes to lack of free will "If everything is bounded by specific attributes, then they will always act the same way in the same situation. " This is a rather curious statement that doesn't actually have any evidence to support it. How can my opponent prove that, at this very second, I will inevitably continue to type this argument? How can he know that I wouldn't change my mind to get a drink? My opponent seems to be making up this connection between "specific attributes" and a lack of free will, and I posit that either my opponent cannot prove his statement to be true, or he cannot prove that we have "specific attributes" as he claims we do. There's also the Heisenberg uncertainty principle [2], which states that it is physically impossible to know everything about a given particle, which means that we can't predict everything that's going to happen in the universe. d. Opponent must prove determinism is false My opponent claims that he has proven determinism to be true, but uses so few reliable sources, and so many logical fallacies, that we can't take his word seriously. As for "flowing" to him, he has the burden of proof for his own contention, so he can't just expect a default to favor him over me. Finally, my opponent makes the preposterous statement that because I didn't show determinism to be false, I must agree that determinism is true. I can't show free will to be false, either; does that mean that I must agree that free will is true, as well? I can neither show that dinosaurs weren't completely green nor that dinosaurs weren't completely red; does that mean that I think that dinosaurs were simultaneously completely green and completely red at the same time? e. People can't choose, then they can't have rights I already refuted this claim in Point A. f. Illusions of rights It was my opponent who initially claims that all rights must be judged by people; it was my opponent who initially claimed that rights cannot be natural. His claim, his burden. However, I will point out that the Texas Constitution cites the right to change the government as a natural, "inalienable" right. Conclusion+: I have provided two solid, yet ignored arguments as to why the people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America. My opponent has made three counter-arguments, one of which collapsed right away and two of which I have repeatedly shown to be filled with baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. Vote PRO. Thank you again, Mr. Jack Nixon, and good luck with your future debates. 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...