The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

My opponent has presented some refutals, but I feel they aren't adequate. I shall explain. 1. Some Texans don't believe they have the right to secede. I agree with your definition. But who does this 'justification'? Seeing as you resolution points to the people, it seems only logical the people must decide themselves what is just. If someone (like myself) finds it to be unjust to secede, then it's unjust and therefore not a right. My opponent also makes the mistake of talking about a government. But, the resolution he provides talks about the people, not the government. So all definition apply to people, making my argument valid. 2. Rights aren't real. My opponent seems confused. I'll walk through each argument individually. *rights must be chosen by agent* This is only logical. Rights do not simply 'exist' but something must find them to hold true. In my opponent's own definition he states a right must be just. This means something must judge it. In the case of this resolution, the people are the agents that should choose there rights. *everything holds 'laws'* While it is true we have not discovered everything, everything we HAVE discovered is bonded to very strict rules of nature. It is illogical, and simply wishful thinking to assume that there is some entity not bounded by the very laws nature abides by. My opponent's thinking is illogical, while mine makes perfect sense and is common knowledge. *specific attributes to lack of free will* I am sorry I was not clear enough. Allow me to explain. If everything is bounded by specific attributes, then they will always act the same way in the same situation. This means that everything in the universe is determined, and strictly cause and effect. In a cause and effect situation, our lives could be completely predicted by looking at the arrangement of molecules and seeing how the will react. This means that the human's life is already laid out for him. Because it is laid out, the human can't truly 'choose' and action, but merely has the illusion of doing so. If humans don't have the freedom to choose their actions, it is obvious they don't have free will. *Opponent must prove determinism is false.* I have already shown determinism to be true. What I was saying was that if my opponent failed to show determinism false, then it would flow to me. It also appears that my opponent didn't show determinism false. Therefore he must agree it is true (from the given arguments). *people can't choose, then they can't have rights* This is completely linked, it just seems my opponent doesn't understand. A right must be proved just to be a right according to my opponent's definition. Therefore something must be judged to become a right. If someone does not have free will, then they can't truly judge anything, as it is predetermined. Since nothing can be judged, no rights can exist [all according to my opponent's definition.] *illusions of rights* If my opponent is to say there are divine and natural rights, it is his burden to prove it. As Neg, I don't have an obligation to. Although I will say that there are no natural rights, and also that there is no God (therefore no divine rights) In conclusion, I have cleared up and explained my arguments so that they still stand. I look forward to the next round.