This House would reject consensus.

Let's start with the observation and the value analysis. My opponent drops the observation that states that I have the right to propose a value and a criterion as a filter for the arguments in this round. He further drops my value of Justice and my value criterion of preservation of natural rights, meaning that these must be the inherent standards for this round. All contentions must then link back to this filter. Insofar as he hasn't given you any reasons as to why his side better preserves natural rights than my side, you should affirm automatically. Even if you believe all of his responses to my contentions, you still must affirm because he has only mitigated them and has not proven why the United States should change its policy (in such cases, debate rules stipulate that you automatically vote for the status quo.) Let us glance at his responses to my contentions. In contention 1, I explained that direct democracies are more prone to rights violations because people look to their self interests first. He responded by claiming that this problem is nonunique because it also exists in representative democracies. The problem with his response is that modern democracies possess checks that prevent this from occurring. Representative democracy, by nature, minimizes the ability of politicians to act in their own interests because if they do so at the expense of the people, they will be exposed and kicked out of office. This is why representative democracies are less corrupt than dictatorships and authoritarian forms of government. Moreover, the United States in particular has checks such as the electoral college, the Supreme Court, separation of powers, federalism, etc. that slows the political process and thus minimizes the impact of self interest. This helps prevent unjust laws from being enacted. Finally, he fails to account for the fact that direct democracies are based on the emotions of the masses, which are easily influenced by prejudiced sentiments, so direct democracies are more likely to be corrupted than representative democracies. Insofar as this is true, I better preserve natural rights and thus better achieve Justice. Next, he claims that my Jacobian example from the French Revolution is outdated and not applicable in the modern world. First, you can turn this analysis, because the reason that its is not applicable is because we no longer have direct democracies. He has absolutely no examples that prove that direct democracies have worked properly in the past without the violation of natural rights, while I have this example of the most recent direct democracy that caused massive violations. Second, even if it is an "old example", that does not mean that the example is false or wrong. This is a logical fallacy, so you should not even consider this argument in this round. He also contends that this example fails because it was a revolution against tyranny. However, at the point at which the Jacobians were executing the aristocracy, the government of France had already fallen and the people had seized control of the state's coercive apparatii, meaning that the state had already been overthrown and the actions could not have been justified as an act of self defense. These executions were conducted by the masses, who were influenced by emotion rather than by reason. Finally, let's take a look at this "religion block" that he uses to mitigate my contention 1. You can completely turn this analysis because religion is what prevents such atrocities from occurring, meaning that if a direct democracy were implemented today, and if according to my opponent, religion is declining, these problems would be magnified to a greater extent. You can extend the French Revolution example because the French Revolution was itself a wholesale rejection of religion and an embracing of science and reason; churches were torn down and replaced by "Temples of Reason", and the guillotine was created as an instrument of destruction because it was powered by gravity and was thus a scientific tool. This example indicates that the deterioration of religion causes problems because people turn to their own interests rather than seeking to protect the good of all, so these harms will be magnified in a modern social context. In contention 2, I explained that checks against the people's pure will protects American citizens from tyranny. He first claims that tyranny will no longer happen, but I would contend that the only reason that this is true is because the checks exist to prevent it from occurring. You can extend the Supreme Court analysis, because without it, desegregation would never have occurred and racism would never have become defunct; these checks against tyranny are precisely what has shaped the American public's need to protect the rights of all. He then claims that the participating population would check itself. The problem is that since democracy is the will of the people, there would be absolutely no check on a majority seeking to harm a minority because the state would be forced to act according to the interests of the greatest number of the population. He claims that this can be solved by argument and learning, but these concepts can only be implemented in a representative democracy, and not in a participatory democracy, because representative democracies have checks that slow the decision making process, while participatory democracies do not have this checks. Thus, you can extend the affirmative case because I better preserve natural rights and thus better achieve Justice. I strongly urge an affirmation of today's resolution.