NCFL LD topic 2010

Thanks for your response. (: Sorry about the dropped point, I forgot to cross apply my Criterion argument over to that point, since they're about the same. Anywho. .. onto the standards debate;; My value of morality stands, as the documents our government, and our whole nation, must abide by all include one core principle of morality. The laws and rules included in these doctrines stem from justice, and justice stems from morality. My opponent continues to argue that the government doesn't have a moral agency, and therefore, no moral obligation, and so my "value must be dropped. " However, if you read through his NC, you'll notice he concedes that the government does have a moral agency when he says "Pretty much a government has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens first. .. " Through this, we can see that, as agreed by myself and my opponent, the government does have moral obligations to meet. My opponent's value, Maximization of peace, is important, however, maximization of peace falls under the category of morality, and thus, the ultimate value must be morality. My criterion, then, must also stand, because Minimization of Dehumanization is one of the most important moral obligations the US government has to meet. My opponent's criterion, Government Legitimacy, must be dropped because without a value it cannot be linked to anything, as my opponent has pointed out. Onto my first point. .. Faithfulness to our founding documents and international agreements. This includes the Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. As my opponent brought up earlier, all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. ". .. recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. .. " [UNudhr] My second point. .. Respect for humanity [or minimization of dehumanization] "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. " [1AR] (It is 1AR, right? Hahah) My opponent says that group B may not be worthy of humanization. First off, we must see that, even if group B is an unpopular group, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights all tell us that all people are afforded certain inalienable rights. We must remain faithful to these doctrines, and therefore, have a moral obligation to afford these rights to all people on US soil. My opponent's case: My opponent says that illegal immigrants are a problem because they don't pay taxes and take advantage of public services, however, according to MSNBC "In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job. " and since 1996, more than 11 million ITIN's (Individual Tax Identification Numbers) have been issued to illegal foreigners, so that they may be recognized as taxpayers. We must see that illegal immigrants, yes, are obviously here illegally, however, most abide by our laws, find work, pay taxes at higher rates than public service usage, and my opponent lists this as the only burden that illegal immigrants put on our nation. Without immigrants causing this trouble, we must see, they're not doing any harm. I'd also like to reiterate the fact that, once somebody's violated our law or social contract, the revocation of rights is justified. As my opponent pointed out, illegal immigrants haven't agreed to the social contract, however as I've shown, most of them do abide by our laws and core principles. (: