NCFL LD topic 2010

I wasn't planning on Cross-Examination, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. =). I personally though waive my right to cross-examination. For a brief road map, NC-AC. I affirm, Resolved: That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil. I agree with all her definitions. Observation 1: Since this topic is very broad in terms of using an example to debate upon, we need an example that is fair. I offer illegal immigration. So when the resolution is talking about people on American soil, the underlying question is "Is our government morally obliged to afford the same constitutional rights to non-citizens living in our country?" Focusing on illegal immigrants would keep us off of abusive arguments such as released felons, or terrorists living in secret in our country. (Notice how these abusive arguments would have worked in favor of the Con.) So in this debate let's talk about the effects of affording illegal immigrants the same constitutional rights as American citizens. The best value to determine today's round will be Maximization of Peace. The utmost important goal in today's round is to preserve the most peace, and if possible achieve more peace. So I urge the voter's to vote on who maximizes the most peace in today's round. The way the con will be maximizing peace today is limiting non citizen's rights. Since the resolution is asking the affirmative to afford the SAME rights to all, then its the con's job to show why they shouldn't have all the same rights. Granted, they do have unalienable rights, such as right to life, liberty, freedom of religion, etc. To measure how much peace we maximize, we will look to the criterion of government legitimacy. Pretty much a government has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens first, and when we help the non-citizens in the country such as illegal immigrants, we upset the people, hurt the economy, allow invasion. C1- Protecting illegal aliens is essentially encouraging a border-less America. Pretty much like she said I'll go into detail later in round, but when we willingly give illegal immigrants shelter and rights, we are saying "We don't want you here, but if your here your here." Its like telling a child that they can't have candy, but when the child steals the candy, they go unpunished and are allowed to keep eating the candy. By giving them rights, we encourage illegal immigration, and even if not that we don't discourage it. That equals a border-less America. C2-A border-less America is not only bad, it's invasion. A border-less America is bad because they are not in the system so not paying taxes, yet they take advantage of our public resources. It said's in the constitution that the government has to protect us from invasion. Having thousand's of illegal aliens sneaking in our border is essentially that. AC Her value of Morality falls because since the government is th agent of action, that's the one who is enacting morality. But since the government is an institution and not a human, it has no moral agency, Morality falls. Her criterion has no backing, no analysis, and without a value nothing to link to. Minimization of Dehumanization falls. C1- (a)She fails to note that a right would be voting. I'll leave in in the hands of the voters to decide if its smart to allow a non American citizen to vote. Also, she advocates objectivism, which is like saying, "Lets not stray from the rules". Well someties rules need to be adapted, changed, or gone with the changing generations. (b) Yeah, but as the UN they have to respect our rules and policies. Also them having that influence over us is like a non citizen of the US being able to vote for our president. Once again, bad. C2- Were giving them right to life and basics, just not "affording them the same as American citizens". thus there no de-huminization occuring. Thanks for accepting round, great arguments, also check comment box please, RaeTulo