Parents should be legally identified and held responsible [2]

Pro: Con did not claim that a "should" resolution must be Constitutional. He rebutted that those judging the debate are free to judge it on the basis of Constitutionality if they choose to, whether it is required or not. That's true. In general, there is no compulsion to judge a debate based upon logic or evidence either. Doing so is simply a convention associated with debate. The resolution asserts that parents should be held responsible for their children. I would be bizarre if the Constitution prohibited that, but if that is the case then the Constitution ought to be amended to allow it. This is an unfair analogy. Constitutionality clearly comes into play as a competing right. In other words, if someone judges that Constitutionality is a more pressing right, then it certainly has relevance in a public policy and normative debate. Pro: The proposition does not require that the father "be involved" in the raising of the child to any extent other than providing financial support. That the father need not necessarily be involved in the raising of the child was made clear in my opening argument in the paragraph beginning "In the case of a dissolved relationship ..." What is at issue is only potential child support from a father seeking to avoid responsibility. I am sorry, but this did not come across in the resolution. It seemed as if the resolution was trying to instill a sense of responsibility and obligation on both parents by forcing both to pay some part the financial responsibilities of the child. The resolution has two parts, one of which is that parents must be legally identified, which I argued against on Constitutional grounds. The second part had to do with financial responsibility, which I argued was too general and did not allow enough discretion for the mother. Pro: Con is ignoring the definition of "support" giving in the opening round, as "the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or the government, for the care and support of children ..." My apologies for this mistake. I did in fact miss this portion of the first round. I guess we are even on misquotes ;) Pro: Con argues completely irrelevant language in international law regarding the right to have a child. Nothing in the the proposition limits the right to have a child or for it to be raised entirely by the mother. The point of this reference was to point out the inherent right of the mother to decide whether or not the father will be involved in the child's life, and to emphasize the need for probable cause to search for the father if the mother does not wish it. The problem with the resolution, as I pointed out, is that the father seems to be required to be involved in the child's life, and there are no exceptions to this because financial responsibility seems to give the father a right to be involved in the child's life. In other words, if the father is financially responsible, then he has the right to be involved in the child's life. It is my contention that the mother, who has the most vested interest in the well being of the child, ought to be able to decide whether or not she wants the father in the child's life in any way,. Pro: Con went on to argue that the mother could nonetheless provide erroneous names under the guise of providing probable cause. However, that is inherent in any providing of probable cause. Whatever evidence of probable cause could be in error. That is why a judge decides whether the evidence is sufficient or not. The point I was trying to make is the inherent easy standard that police must have in order to search for the father. This easy hurdle would make fishing expeditions and leaning on the mother to provide names of potential fathers too easy. There is no standard of review for this kind of identification that would prevent this gross violation of 4th Amendment rights. Pro: Moreover, the identification of the parent is always separate from imposition of financial responsibility. Is installing a security camera or requiring a driver's license a violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to Con's legalistic thinking, they ought to be. I certainly do not think that driver's licenses and security cameras can be struck down as 4th Amendment violation, and it takes a pretty twisted view of my argumentation to arrive at this conclusion. DNA identification is not compulsory according to current jurisprudence unless a police officer has probable cause to seize DNA information in regards to a crime. Since DNA ID is not seen as compulsory, requiring a father to be DNA tested is a high hurdle to jump because it's inherent link to other criminal investigations and the high likelihood of fishing expeditions. The general thrust of my argument is as follows. Constitutional concerns are valid for a public policy debate, even a normative one because, as in this case, Constitutional concerns come into conflict with the resolution. If someone sees Constitutional concerns trumping the concerns of the resolution, then one must negate. If one does not agree with that line of argumentation, then one must concede that the resolution has too much of an umbrella nature because it does not allow the mother to have control over whether the father has a part in the child's life. Since the mother would seem to have a better position to judge what is in the child's best interest, and since a father does have the right to be in the child's life if he is financially responsible, then the resolution is too broad and should be negated. Essentially, the general thrust of my argumentation is to point out the conflict in rights that occur from the general application drawn up in the proposition, and to demonstrate that this conflict in rights is unavoidable, and, hence, the resolution should be negated.