Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

I've used his order from RD 1. ---------Con Advocacy--------- On Con's "Observation": They come into conflict at the point where people don't have the right to self-determination or political actualization, which is a guaranteed right under the UN Declaration of Rights and most conceptions of political natural rights in existence. On Con's "Analysis": The point? This is true of any government, but I would argue that political self-actualization is a guaranteed right, as it achieves other natural rights, while other forms of government tend far more often to lead to rights abuses (socialist governments, neo-communist governments, totalitarian regimes, etc. ) On "What Constitutes a Democracy": Sure. But at the point where we don't have spontaneously generated societies anymore, you can't argue that totalitarianism or absolute power consolidation is necessary for democratic principles to come about. Governments are already established in the world-- hence we are talking about when governments meet or when the UN or another world organization get's involved in a national conflict. On "Constitution of the State": Sure. But democratic principles are not the same as a pure democracy. As stated in my resolutional analysis, I'm not required to argue pure democracies, because they don't, in practice, exist. At all. Furthermore, democratic principles are the only thing that gives the government the power to wield such force. A totalitarian government wields this force, but without the consent or regulation of the general populous, we see rampant human rights abuses. On "Popular Sovereignty": In the case of the current status of world politics, this isn't a spontaneous process. Framer's intent suggests that the debate is over whether foreign policy actions should lean more toward encouraging democratic principles or straight up sovereignty. At the point where totalitarian governments already exist, our debate lies in that ground, and not in a hypothetical tabula rasa in which no one has this monopoly over power. ---------Pro Advocacy--------- On "Democracy Doesn't Preclude": I argue that it philosophically precludes, not that it historically precludes. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the crux of my case. Of course the first government was probably not a pure democracy, or a democratic republic. Granted, we have no clue how authority was centralized in caveman times, but recorded history doesn't help his argument. On Anarchy and the "Two Aforementioned Facts": 1. Apply my resolutional analysis #1 here. I am not required to abandon sovereignty, just to argue that democratic principles should be prioritized higher than sovereignty. My opponent gains no anarchy impacts off of this argument, because we aren't living in an absence of the monopoly of power in a Pro world. 2. Just because states existed without a democratic system does not mean that they existed with maximum protection of human rights. Note the ground of this debate: since we are discussing priority and cost/benefit analysis, if you don't buy that anarchy will ensue from a simple preference, then you will vote Pro based on the fact that I am the only one in the round that maximizes human rights. Finally: please extend all of the Locke evidence and Article II of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as the impacts here go entirely unaddressed (essentially, the political philosophy portion of this debate has been disregarded entirely by Con). The nature of this debate is directly based on a cost/benefit analysis of priority, not on a world in which sovereignty is sacrificed in order to achieve pure democracies. Bottom line: political self-actualization is a fundamental right (see Article II). Sovereignty is not at the point where it can easily lead to power abuses, which it obviously can in the real, current world.