When forced to choose, a just government . . . (see text for full resolution)

N1. The analogy regarding the frumious Bandersnatch is inappropriate. In the case of universal human rights, it doesn't matter what they are because we already know their relevance. We know that universal human rights are (to put it plainly) a good thing to have, and that all people have a right to them (which is why they are rights). In the case of the frumious Bandersnatch, we don't know what it is, but more importantly, we do not know its relevance. We really know next to nothing about it. Not so with universal human rights. We know that all humans have a right to them, and that's all we need to know. If a just government is "consistent with what is morally right in its dealings and actions", it will correctly identify universal human rights. My opponent agreed to this definition. But, for those who do not think it realistic to assume that a just government will correctly identify universal human rights, my case still holds weight. Although my opponent argues that no country has identified universal human rights with certainty, I think this is too extreme a requirement. Many nations have a fair and agreeable idea of universal human rights. Countries that highly prioritize universal human rights often come up with very similar definitions. The United States, in the Declaration of Independence, recognized "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; the French Declaration of Rights recognized "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression." Although these rights are somewhat different, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an American who would object to the rights that the French recognized, and vice versa. I also think you'll find this to be true of any government in the free world. Perhaps Kim Jong-il would have a different definition, but the government of North Korea could hardly be called just. My opponent has turned to an unjust government for an unjust example of human rights; only an example of a just government with an unjust definition of human rights could begin to be relevant. Totalitarian leaders such as Kim Jong-il probably do have suitable definitions of universal human rights; but their failure to act on those definitions — to place human rights at a high priority — is what makes those governments unjust. I'm not friends with any dictators, but they probably understand at some level that the crimes they're committing are morally wrong. But doing the morally right thing for the people isn't their priority. ======== C1. My opponent simplified the resolution to "If forced to choose between A and B, government must choose B." There is a subtle but significant flaw in this simplification: it ought to read "If forced to choose between A and B, government *ought to* choose B." The negation is "If forced to choose between A and B, government *ought not* choose B." If the resolution is a call to action for B, then the only alternative is A; the negation is therefore implying that A is the preferable choice. ======== C2. All people are created with certain unalienable rights. A deprivation of these fundamental rights represents nothing less than the deepest form of injustice. My opponent claims that there is no mandate to give priority to the interests of foreign countries. He fails to recognize the mandate to rectify injustice, wherever it may be. All men are created equal; Americans are no more important than the citizens of any other nation. This is why it is imperative that universal human rights be ensured. Anything less would be immoral. While I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have supported Nigerians asserting their rights in Nigeria and Chinese asserting their rights in China, they were busy asserting their own rights. They were not asserting their own national interest, which only happens after human rights are in place. To continue to use America as an example, we citizens are now given assurance of our rights, and it is time to turn to the rights of people outside of our nation. It is a simple matter of justice. ======== N2. My opponent continues to assume that the resolution contains some third option. It does not say "a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over national interest and letting people vote on it." In the scenario we are debating over, the government is required to choose between universal human rights and national interest. I am arguing that universal human rights is the preferable choice. My opponent is arguing that it is not. It's that simple. ======== N3. My opponent makes a good point on this contention. I concede that there is a moral responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. In addition, I would argue that ensuring human rights takes priority over the welfare of one's family. Ensuring basic human rights for yourself and your family is the top priority; but it would be unjust to force others to sacrifice their own human rights in order to ensure the interests of yourself or your family. Suppose that you are poorer than you'd like to be. You could take a job as a hitman and rob others of their life for your own self-interest. This would clearly be wrong. There is a reason why killing another human being is such a great crime, except in the case of self-defense: your own rights are of paramount importance, but your interests are not more important than the rights of others. This still leaves my second counter-argument, which has not been addressed. The government must make a choice between the interests of people within the nation and the rights of people everywhere. If the government chooses to support human rights, the interests of people within the nation will be harmed. At the same time, if the government chooses to support national interests, the rights of people around the world will be relinquished. Either way, someone has to make a sacrifice. One side represents sacrifice of temporary interests; the other side faces relinquishment of fundamental rights. It is clear where the scale tips. ======== I have demonstrated that any government that cares about human rights can come up with a good definition, and that ensuring universal human rights is not an "undefined quest" but a clear objective that any free country ought to support. I have demonstrated that human rights are more important than personal self-interest. I have demonstrated that, when in conflict, universal human rights ought to be prioritized over national interest.