When forced to choose, a just government . . . (see text for full resolution)

N1. It is not possible to prioritize "universal human rights" without knowing what they are. Pro first argues that it doesn't have to be an individual country's concept of human rights, but rather just "universal human rights." So how does that prevent Kim Il-Jung from prioritizing his version of human rights while America prioritizes it's version? It is impossible to avoid the specifics. In fact, the resolution compels Kim to prioritize his version of human rights above the interests. If Kim believes that freedom from the yoke of capitalism is a human right, then under the resolution he is compelled to attack South Korea. Pro clams that we even if we do not agree on what human rights are, they are all good so it doesn't matter. Kim's concept of human rights is not all good. Beyond that, some say that a right to health care is a good thing because everyone deserves heath care, but others say it is a bad thing because less real health care is delivered by government. The right to bear arms is good because it provides for self-defense, but it is bad because people are allowed guns for bad purposes. There is no end of controversial rights issues. Pro next argues that by the definition of a "just country" any country that meets the definition of the resolution will figure out exactly what universal human rights are before prioritizing. I rebutted that the resolution cannot mean that only countries that have achieved a true understanding of justice must comply, but rather that one thing a country must do to achieve justice is prioritize human rights above self-interest. The proof is that the resolution is posed for the real world, not a fantasy world. Pro did not respond to this argument. Additional, if the resolution presumes that just countries exist and can be identified, then there is no need for a resolution to tell what them to do. A resolution is call to action. A hypothetical "just country" needs no call to act justly, it will do whatever is just. Pro argues that many countries have good agreement on what constitutes the broad principles of universal human rights. Pro is right that Americans would largely agree with the French about human rights. However, that does not help when the Chinese and North Koreans get their copies of the affirmed resolution. The resolution might have been written as "... a just country must prioritize traditional Western concepts of universal human rights above self-interest." That would still have problems with being definite, but it would have been better. However, the resolution leaves it entirely up to government to decide what constitutes "universal human rights," without clues as to what those rights are. While the broad principles are agreed to by many nations, it is easy to make a like of possible rights upon which first-world nations disagree: health care, housing, jobs, abortion, education, right to bear arms, right to hate speech, jury trial, separation of church and state, and the death penalty. There is not much agreement on the extent of property rights among nations. If the resolution were enacted, some things would be agreed upon by Western nations, but the resolution does not say, "Prioritize the human rights that Western nation agree upon, but then lay off the many issues of disagreement." If A and B disagree over some right, then the resolution obligates them to prioritize that right above self-interest. C1. Pro argues that the negation of "ought to" in the resolution is "ought not." "Ought to" in the context of the resolution means "is compelled by moral considerations". The negation is therefore "is not compelled by moral considerations." Let's suppose that Pro's understanding of the resolution is correct, so that country's choice is to always act in self-interest or to always act for universal human rights. Now consider a hypothetical in which India gets some funds from tax revenues and must choose to spend it upon either the economic development of rural India or universal human rights, like land rights in Nigeria. If Pro's interpretation is correct, then if the resolution is affirmed, India may never spend on its own economic development, it must always choose advancing universal human rights. But that's ridiculous, so the resolution must be negated to allow any self-interest whatsoever. In response to this example, one might argue that the economic development of rural India is also among the "universal human rights" that ought to pursued. However, economic development is clearly *also* self-interest. Therefore the resolution then becomes, "self-interest should be prioritized above self-interest." Then the resolution provides no call to action and fails. Under either my claim of the meaning or Pro's claim, the resolution fails. C2. I challenged Pro to provide evidence that the Founders intended for the advancement of human rights in foreign countries to b prioritized above American self-interest. Pro claims that "all men are created equal" implies that national interest be subordinated to universal human rights. If the Declaration of Independence was a proclamation that the new nation exists to advance human rights elsewhere, then surely that should have been proclaimed clearly in the writings of the Founders. But there is no such evidence. Pro's interpretation is unsupported by any of the people who wrote or signed the document. The Revolution was entirely about the self-interests of the American people, not a call for an international rights crusade. I agree that the Founders would provide endorsement of universal human rights. That follows from the rights being "self-evident." That does not imply that the rights of others ought to be prioritized above self-interest. N2. Repeats the arguments of N1. N3. Pro concedes that there is a moral responsibility to protect oneself and ones family, but claims "that ensuring human rights takes priority over the welfare of one's family." The resolution requires that universal human rights always be put at a higher priority. The burden is put upon government to enforce the resolution. So if your family is short of food and you get a dollar, the government has the choice of letting you keep the dollar or taxing it away and using it to advance land rights in Nigeria. The resolution might have said, "Wealthy countries have an obligation to advance universal human rights." But it doesn't say that. It gives no option other than to always prioritize human rights over self-interest. Demanding self-sacrifice as a priority is immoral. Pro argues that it wrong to always prioritize self-interest above the rights of others, because that validates theft. I think that enlightened self-interest invalidates theft, but for the sake of argument, suppose that's true. Clearly placing the rights of others above self also fails. Pro's interpretation is that the resolution offers two completely unacceptable extremes. If so, the resolution is negated as being absurd and self-contradictory. The self-contradiction is that a "just government" is mandating an immoral action. Under my interpretation, negating the resolution means that we get to keep doing what we have always been doing, sometimes prioritizing universal rights and sometimes not. The resolution fails because it is indefinite, and thereby calls for governments to define universal human rights and then crusade for them. The resolution separately fails because it completely subordinates the moral responsibility of self-interest to the interests of others.