September/October LD Resolution

For signposting purposes, I will begin by deconstructing my opponent’s case and then move on to uphold my own. Deconstruction Value My opponent begins with a value of “the purpose of the United States Constitution.” He defines this by reciting the preamble, thus I assume that the actual value(s) my opponent claims in this debate is/are the following: To establish justice; To insure domestic tranquility; To provide for the common defense; To promote the general welfare; To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The problem with my opponent’s values is simply that they conflict because neg picks one above the others. Because they are all his value, and he fails to achieve all (according to my opponent, if he provides for the common defense he cannot establish objective justice) his values contradict each other, causing the whole to fall. Therefore, in the course of the debate, if I am able to prove that, as pertains to this resolution, if one value is upheld only at the expense of another, my opponent’s case necessarily falls. Value Criterion My opponent’s value criterion is “no actions or procedures shall be taken if the purpose of the United States Constitution is deemed to be harmed. You may cross-apply is with my rebuttal and observation to his value, but there is another problem with this view. My opponent seems to enter the debate with assumption that the statutes upon which a country was built (namely the Constitution) do not have the ability to be wrong, unjust, and not what should or ought to be done. It is wrong, however, to assume that government cannot act outside of these boundaries, for if such a boundary exists that is unjust, it would indeed be wrong not to break it. In certain scenarios that were not foreseen by the founders of our country, the purpose of the United States Constitution may not be fulfilled by the enumerations of the preamble. Contention 1 Essentially, my opponent’s point here is that denying due process protections to non-citizens of the United States accused of terrorism will be an economic good; he calls this economic good a “legitimate government purpose.” However, while this purpose may be a good in and of itself, it is not a legitimate end; it does not achieve justice. My opponent may achieve economic benefits by obscuring the universality of justice, but this is not just, and furthermore it defeats his first listed value of establishing justice by only giving justice to some and not others. Contention 2 This contention is flawed because it contains the second assumption of the debate, and no justification for it. My opponent’s contention is supported by these phrases: “By granting terrorists the right to enjoy;” deter unlawful activities by punishing criminals;” and “may rejoin the enemy and continuing to fight.” Examine these phrases. They all assume the guilt of the persons accused of terrorism. I must stress the word accused mentioned within the resolution. It implies the ability of false accusation. As I mentioned in my constructive case, the natural rights of any being, be they foreign to the U.S. or otherwise, are too intrinsic to be taken away without the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” granted through due process protections. Contention 3 “Moral[ity] and justice should not be unduly encouraged at the expense of national interests.” I would like to point out that here my opponent directly contradicts his value (please refer to the value clash). Simply, this contention can be cross-applied with my response to his contentions one and two. Safety and economics are not legitimate ends in themselves. I have already taken the time to explain why this is so. You must flow my value of justice through the round. I will now move on to uphold my own case, countering my opponent’s rebuttals.Rebuttals Rebuttal 1 My opponent’s “rebuttal 1” is a question that I would be happy to answer. I am a bit confused, however, that my opponent asks this question, because he seems to regard the United States’ method of “establishing justice” very highly as he has included it in is enumerated values and supported the idea that it can never be transgressed, with his value criterion. Regardless, to quote from my constructive case, where the answer to this question is found, “We would never abuse a woman from the Middle East simply because she is not subject to the ‘idea’ of justice that the United States grants to its citizens. We reject such abusive treatment of women wherever it is practiced precisely because it is unjust. In the United States, we institute certain laws because we believe those laws to be just.” Essentially, it is irrelevant whether or not anyone can prove whether the United States’ concept of justice is defined objectively, but because we believe our laws to be just, and what is objectively just, we are obligated to fulfill justice’s requirement of universality and extend those justices to all people. Rebuttal 2 In his “rebuttal two,” my opponent is only reaffirming his inability to uphold his value he states that “in general, I do believe that U.S. government should react to injustices justly…when is it compatible with national interests.” My opponent lists five values, yet he obviously favors some above others. While his purpose in this debate should be try to achieve his value, he only tries to convince us that some (primarily the establishment of justice) are unnecessary, but should be put behind others. He even concedes that justice is not being achieved with the negation of this resolution. Rebuttal 3 Neg “senses circular reasoning.” This only requires clarification. Neg’s misunderstanding stems from his belief that I am arguing that the United States has the responsibility to ensure that every accused person in the world is given due process protections. “Merely because the justice is the universal right, it does not imply that the United States ought to make sure that everyone enjoy this right.” No, of course this is not the responsibility of the United States. It is, however, the United States’ responsibility to extend to all within its jurisdiction the due process protections of U.S. citizens. Rebuttal 4 My opponent, in his “rebuttal four,” only quotes a small part of the fourteenth amendment and then proceeds to state the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the affirmative case. The section of that which does apply to my case I will reiterate: “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.” The point is that when addressing natural rights, the constitution does not limit due process protections to non-citizens, but extends it to “any person.” The natural rights of life, liberty, and property are simply too fundamental to be revoked without this section of the constitution.