Japan should remove Article 9 of it's constitution

Thanks, Uther!OVERVIEWMy overview is dropped. Pro still has failed to clearly show which links correspond to which claims, which makes it hard to verify his assertions.ARGUMENTSPRMS. War = Sovereign Right1. Rights Can be Waived. This point is dropped by Pro; please extend it. The impact of this point is very clear and devastating. In conjunction with the polling data I provided (which was also dropped), I made the argument that the Japanese people, through their avid support for Article 9, have chosen now to waive their right to engage in offensive war. Insofar as sovereigns can waive rights, and insofar as the polling data supports that the right was waived, I've shown that Pro's sovereignty argument does not uphold the resolution. 2. Sovereigns Self-limit. I agree that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not give their people a choice in governance. In fact, I wrote: "Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits." Sovereigns must have limits on what they can do; no sovereign should have the power to throw people into prisons without trial, for example. That is why most constitutions enshrine due process rights for their citizens; these due process rights are limitations on the sovereign's power imposed (more or less) by the sovereign. If sovereigns can limit their power, as Pro seems to agree that they can (he opposes the total authority of the state found in the examples I noted), then the impact is that it is not conceptually absurd to suggest that sovereigns can impose limits on themselves, such as limits preventing them from engaging in offensive wars. Pro needs to show that Japan should not self-limit in this way, but, my point is that they can do it, so unless Pro can furnish a compelling reason to not self-limit here, he cannot win.3. Internal Support =/= No External Coercion. Pro writes: "However, note that while the incuring [sic] influence of foreign powers may not delegitimize a government, it does not justify the original incursion of foreign powers...Even if you do turn out to like X, it doesn't justify having X forced upon you." Sure, the "original" violation was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. The whole point of sovereignty, as articulate by Pro, is to respect the choice and autonomy of a nation's citizenry. So, violating their ability to choose by imposing Article 9 on them was an infringement of sovereignty. But, violating their ability to choose by taking away a popular article of their constitution is ALSO a violation of sovereignty. Now, at this time, Japan wants Article 9, and so the people should be allowed to exercise their sovereign authority to keep the Article. The original violation was temporary, not on-going because the Japanese have come to embrace it. It would therefore not be reparative to rescind the Article, it would only be another violation of sovereignty. Frankly, nothing Pro said changed my basic point, that "if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me." I mean, using Pro's logic, I could say that the Constitution was forced on me (I never voted for it, nor have any of my contemporaries) and so it must be removed. Yet, that would be silly, because if we as a society still want to retain it, we should be allowed to do so.A1. Article 9 Infringes on Japan's SovereigntyAll of my arguments here about the popularity of Article 9 were dropped. Extend them. Also, extend my earlier impact analysis: "Firstly, it shows that the Japanese people have 'waived' their right to war by supporting a pacifist position. Secondly, it shows that the legislation has internal support, and is thus not a violation of sovereignty." There are two, clear-cut ways for you to vote Con already. Using these dropped stats plus the dropped argument about waiving rights, you can vote Con on the basis that the Japanese people are deciding to waive their right to war. Furthermore, you could vote Con using these stats and the idea of self-limitation. Article 9 is no longer a violation of sovereignty, because the Japanese have chosen willingly to keep it. Past violations do not alter the fact that the Japanese have now, of their own volition, embraced Article 9.A2. Self-DefensePro never challenges the legal validity of Sunakawa, which upheld the mutual defense pact between the US and Japan, and Japan's right to self-defense. Pro does however voice concern about the mutual defense pact, and Pro appears to intimate that Japan lacks an active army. Let's me tackle each of these claims individually. Firstly, Pro frets that the U.S. might bail on Japan, but this is highly unlikely. Firstly, the U.S. has never, to my knowledge, failed to fulfill a mutual defense commitment, including those given to NATO. Secondly, the U.S. has a key strategic interest in Japan that would impel them to fulfill their commitments. Japan is our 4th largest trading partner [1] and a key geopolitical ally in counterbalancing Chinese expansionism [2]. Obama has stridently reaffirmed his commitment to Japan's defense [3], and it's likely that any future president will do the same.As for the notion that Japan would be impotent without the US, that would be incorrect. Japan does have an army, formally referred to as the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, which is tasked with defending Japan and often engages in peacekeeping, disaster relief, military drill, or other exercises [4]. While not an offensive force, it is perfectly capable of responding to aggressors. It's military forces, for instance, are noticeably more technologically advanced than China's, leading some experts to observe that: "'Japan has the strongest navy and air force in Asia except for the [US].'" [5] It also has an impressive missile defense system. [5]A3. ExpansionismPro drops this. Extend that this point provides Pro no positive offense.PACIFISMPro never rebuts any of the benefits to pacifism that I outlined. Instead, he attempts to say that Japan can still have those benefits if it repeals Article 9. The obvious problem with this claim is the optics surrounding such an action. Repealing a law that prevents you from going to war will be interpreted as aggressive by countries like China and North Korea, making Japan more likely to be targeted. It also means leaders in Japan will have fewer restraints on their ability to act aggressively, and drag Japan into wars. Japan and Iceland exist in very different geopolitical climates.Pro also write: "Pascificm and military can still be compatible. If the military only uses their power for defence when necessary." Isn't this the status quo? Article 9 allows for defense when necessary. If this is what Pro wants, why not just vote Con?VOTING ISSUES1. Waiving Rights Japan's people chose to waive their right to offensive war. Therefore, there is no violation of Sovereignty. 2. Self-Limiting Because Article 9 has internal support, it is a chosen limitation, and thus not a violation of Sovereignty. 3. Defense The only positive reason besides Sovereignty Pro had to affirm was self-defense. But Pro hasn't shown that Japan would be any more safe without Article 9 than with it. Japan can clearly still defend itself against threats, even with Article 9 in place. So, Pro has no positive offense left at this point. 4. Turn Since the vox populi is on the side of Article 9, it would actually be a violation of Sovereignty to take Article 9 away. The people of Japan have chosen X. This turns Pro's entire premise and A1 against him. 5. Pacifism Pro's approach is likely to lead to conflict; mine retains the benefits of pacifism. Thanks! Please Vote Con!SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...