Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

My opponent has said in his last speech that "Sovereignty as a principle does not instantly equate bad. It simply means that some group has lawmaking authority." This definition that CON has given leaves out a key part of sovereignty. The sovereign does not simply have authority, they have SUPREME authority. Sovereignty does not simply entail having some say in goings-on, but having the FINAL say. This is a preferable definition for 2 reasons. (1) CON never gives any source for this definition. This seems to be directly from his head. Given that CON is a participant in this debate in which the definition of sovereignty is crucial and disputed AND this debate is part of a larger debate tournament[1], CON can hardly be considered an unbiased source. Beyond this, CON has no qualifications in this area of expertise. I'm giving a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a respected and unbiased (and, thus, far superior) source. (2) CON's definition does not allow for any meaningful debate since democratic principles and sovereignty would never realistically come into conflict. Insofar as the country promoting democratic principles doesn't oust the entire government and claim complete authority over the law in doing so, the country's "sovereignty" hasn't been violated since they still retain some sort of lawmaking authority. Properly, this debate is a question of whether one nation can violate another's supreme authority and final say in its own domain to promote democracy therein. ~ "Sovereignty is only a bad thing when abused by those in power." CON is conceding that sovereignty is in no way intrinsically valuable and is only good when in the hands of a virtuous government. If so, why should it be defended? If we are trying to promote a different set of values in a particular country, that would imply that they are not currently using their sovereignty properly (ie. abusing it) in which case it is a bad thing and shouldn't be defended. ~ "A nation where sovereignty is given to a small group or individual benefits a country in times of crisis. It does this by making it so that when decisions need to be made in regards to things such as the security of that nation internal dissent is not a factor that can effect decisions.... In a democracy this might pose a problem when the neighbors come knocking." First, my opponent never explains why "this might pose a problem" in democracies. One can look simply to the example of America which gives its representatives, namely our Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President, the ability to make decisive executive decisions such as declaring war in times of crisis.[2] There is no reason a democracy would be hindered in any way. Second, you can refer to the uncontested definition of democracy I give that "[democracy] cover[s] different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational organizations."[3] One needs not force a complete governmental shift from autocracy to democracy in order to promote democratic principles. It can be as simple as promoting democratic ideals and the concept of equality on an individual basis. Third, the (again uncontested) first argument I made in favor of democracy applies equally strong in this instance. "Strategically, democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the rights of most people in society."[4] EVEN IF decision-making takes longer in a democracy, the leaders will not be mobilizing armies willy-nilly nor making rash decisions, preferable to unrepresentative sovereign tyrants leading the country during a crisis. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu...