NCFL LD topic 2010

(: First, the value and criterion debate; My value of morality must stand, as first off, it is inherent in the resolution, and also, the documents and agreements that we as a nation must abide by, all have one core principle: morality. While I agree that maximization of peace is important, we must see that the maximization of peace stems from morality, and thus, the ultimate value must be morality. The US government has an obligation to abide by it's founding doctrines which have a core principle of morality, and therefore has the obligation to achieve morality through affording all people on US soil the same constitutional rights. My criterion, minimization of dehumanization, must also stand. Government legitimacy is important, however let's look to what makes a government legitimate; to abide by it's core principles and founding doctrines, and to enforce the law. All of our laws and founding doctrines all stem from one core principle of morality. So, in order for our government to be legitimate, it must be faithful to it's core principles and founding doctrines, and enforce its laws, all in order to minimize dehumanization, which is moral. We must see that in order to achieve my value of morality, minimization of dehumanization is very necessary. To dehumanize is to make somebody feel "less than human. " To afford certain rights to group A, and not to group B, is to make group B feel lesser than group A, and this is not moral. John Locke's Social Contract tells us, for lack of a better term, to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. To treat somebody as less than yourself, you are treating them as less than human, which, again, is immoral. So in minimizing dehumanization, we are achieving morality, the value to which you must look to in this round. *My opponent speaks of illegal immigrants, and neglects to bring up felons and terrorists because it is abusive. I thank him for this, however, any terrorists living in the United States are illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants are felons. So, his consideration is appreciated, however, it's unnecessary. **So, felons, illegal immigrants, etc. have all violated the law, and the social contract. I think my opponent, and many others, would agree on two things: 1) Violation of the law and/or the social contract justifies revocation of rights. 2) Those who violate the law or social contract were at one time, or would have been, afforded the same rights that were given up through this violation. ***As we see, whether or not the US government continuously affords the same rights to all people on US soil, the rights were, at one point, afforded. 1. " Protecting illegal aliens is essentially encouraging a border-less America. " [** & *** Cross apply] Remember that the government does not have an obligation to give the rights to felons, illegal immigrants, etc. , AFTER they violate the law or social contract. The rights were afforded before laws were broken and the social contract was violated, but the violations justify the revocation, and the government has met its obligation through previously affording these rights. 2. " A border-less America is not only bad, it's invasion. " " A border-less America is bad because they are not in the system so not paying taxes, yet they take advantage of our public resources. It said's in the constitution that the government has to protect us from invasion. Having thousand's of illegal aliens sneaking in our border is essentially that. " Yes, this is true. However the resolution does not ask about the present, it asks about whether we OUGHT to give these people the same rights as others. Illegal immigrants and felons are afforded the same rights at one point, or would have been afforded the same rights before they violated the social contract and the law. We ought to abide by our constitution, as my opponent concedes. And to afford these rights, whether continuously or otherwise, is to have met the moral obligation. Now, to extend my case. 1. Faithfulness to founding documents and international agreements. The US government has an obligation to abide by these doctrines, which all have one core principle: morality, which is also the value you must look to in this debate. The Declaration of Independence tells us that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. To deny these rights is immoral, and does not minimize dehumanization. The 14th amendment of our constitution says " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " Does our government have jurisdiction over anyone on US soil? The people under our jurisdiction MUST be afforded the same rights. Revocation of rights, meaning the taking away of rights, implies that the rights were, at one point, afforded. The violation of law and/or social contract justifies the revocation of rights. (: