Choose any topic!

Introduction Thank you Con for presenting such an interesting topic. I was planning on debating another user on the same topic but never got round to doing so. The burdens here are split meaning that I must prove that human rights ought to be prioritized whilst my opponent must prove that the national interest must be prioritized. Libertarian Framework The framework that I will be presenting for this debate is going to be based around the ideology of libertarianism and a more specific branch inside libertarianism referred to as individualism. Libertarians primarily believe in two things. The first being a less restrictive government (which isn’t necessary for this particular topic). The second being that they strongly value the individual in society and their opinions. This second belief is known as individualism. By not enforcing human rights as strongly you are failing to sufficiently enforce the following upon people to the usual extent: freedom of speech, the right of a good education and right to vote [2]. You could take this further to the extent of the right to having a sufficient amount of food and water [3]. If any one of these is violated then the individual in society is not receiving the correct treatment that they deserve and this ultimately means that you are violating libertarian and individualistic ideology. Although libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, they still believe strongly in keeping the government stable and not being too free (in the sense that rights are violated). Therefore they would agree with the statement: “Silent enim leges inter arma” R13; Marcus Tullius Cicero [4] Meaning: “In times of conflict, the law falls silent.” [4] [5] Since this debate implies conflict in the resolution (‘when forced to choose’) this quote fits in perfectly with the view that I am putting across. Under libertarian ideology, we cannot abandon our human rights because in doing so we give too much freedom, which is possible in a libertarian society. By giving extreme freedom (in the sense that human rights lose a lot of their value), we violate the second belief in libertarianism of individualism because the individual loses their rights and privileges. Voters ought to vote pro based on the fact that to lose priority in human rights is to violate both libertarianism and individualism which is something that people ought to fear [7][8]. Demonstrations of Failure This has been done in the past in places such as Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan [1]. By doing this, these countries have received shockingly poor reputations and the even more surprising causes of these reputations boils down to the lack of priority on human rights. “The Burmese military is notorious for its use of child soldiers. More than 5,000 children are currently serving in the military, not including those who were recruited as children but are now past their 18th birthdays. Poor and uneducated children are the most likely to be recruited, and recruiters have been known to use threats and force against them. Children who refuse can be shackled and fettered; many will never see their families again. Children who do manage to escape from the army are detained and treated as adult deserters.” [8] Burma is a country that prioritized its country's national interest over human rights [9]. They now have children that are forced to work. This is because the country’s national interest demands that they have a larger army. And because the country doesn’t value human rights as much now that they have prioritized the country’s national interest. Now let’s see how successful Burma has been now that they have prioritized the national interest: Burma, since prioritizing its national interests has become the poorest on this list. Now we can look more specifically at Burma. Burma started to prioritize human rights more in 2001 - 2004 [10]. Before 2001, Burma was prioritizing its national interest. Observe how low the GDP per capita was in the year 2000 - the year that Burma was prioritizing its national interest over human rights [11]. Fortunately, Burma is increasing its prioritization on human rights [10] and is building up its GDP per capita although the damage done could mean that it will take a while for Burma to be considered to be removed from the list of the worst countries (in terms of conditions) [1]. Due to the character limit I am restricted in terms of how many countries I can demonstrate that this is a failure for but I will not that Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan are the most notable countries for two reasons. The first being that they all prioritized their national interest over human rights [1]. The second being that they are all considered to be some of the worst countries to live in (in regards to poverty, economy, disease etc.) [1]. Undefined Aims Adolf Hitler believe that he was properly enforcing human rights whilst he prioritized national interest [12]. The nation were angry about having to pay reparations for the damage and deaths of World War One [13]. Their aim was ultimately to seek revenge and therefore Hitler did this. He strongly believe that he was enforcing human rights still despite him admitting to prioritizing the national interest [12]. The aims set by enforcing the national interest are unclear and therefore whatever the national interest is, it must be prioritized over human rights. In some instances the national interest could be wrong and since this resolution is about being forced to choose, implying conflict, the nation could be unsettled and seeking violence and revenge which is a natural response during conflict [14]. Therefore my opponent’s position justifies the actions of Hitler. A person who killed 6 million Jews [15]! This violates libertarianism (restricting people from following certain religions) [6] and individualism (killing many people - ie. individuals) [7]. It also violates almost all major known ideologies including: utilitarianism (many people were killed) [16] and socialism (Jews were not considered equal to everyone) [17]. Comparison Of The Two Extremes The worst that can happen (realistically speaking) in a society without a country's national interest being prioritized is that this country will have a revolution in which people are killed - much like the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolution seeking the abdication of Tsar Nicholas the second [18]. The worst that can happen (realistically speaking) in a society without human rights being prioritized enough is having child soldiers, torture, land confiscation, arbitrary arrests and rape. Now we can compare. What is more important to prevent revolution (which is what my opponent advocates), or child soldiers, rape, torture, land confiscation, arbirary arrests and rape (which is what I am advocating). The answer is clear. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! Sources [1] http://www.voanews.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com... [4] http://www.goodreads.com... [5] http://hackingchristianity.net... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org... [8] https://uscampaignforburma.wordpress.com... [9] https://books.google.co.uk... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [12] http://www.newfoundations.com... [13] https://en.wikipedia.org... [14] http://www.humanillnesses.com... [15] http://www.ushmm.org... [16] https://en.wikipedia.org... [17] https://en.wikipedia.org... [18] https://en.wikipedia.org...;