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

Definitions N1. My opponent claims that governments differ in their definitions of human rights. He claims that "the resolution is likely to provoke 'holy wars' over differing interpretations of human rights. " I have two rebuttals. First, the resolution does not state that a just government should prioritize its own definition of human rights; it says that it should prioritize *universal human rights. * This debate is not about what these rights actually are, but rather about whether a government should pursue them given that they exist. Perhaps it will be a difficult task for the just government in question to define human rights and determine which ones are worth pursuing, but that is not what this debate is about. As far as we are concerned, the just government already had that conversation and has figured out what rights are universal. Second, a just government will by definition — since it is just — have an appropriate definition of "universal human rights. " If a government started a holy war that resulted in greater harm, that government could not be considered just. ======== C1. The resolution states that the government is forced to choose between human rights and national interest. Thus, by necessity, if you negate the resolution then the government must ignore human rights concerns in favor of national interest. "Negating the resolution means that the citizens of a country can decide through their elected government what instances of international human rights violations are more important that domestic needs. " In fact, that is not what it means. If the government (or the citizens, through the government) decides that international human rights violations are more important than domestic needs, then the resolution will have been affirmed. The only case in which this could negate the resolution is if the government's action against human rights violations is intended to serve the long-term interests of the country. Similarly, a government that prioritizes human rights violations will often act in its own self-interest; it is impossible for a broken government to ensure universal human rights. This does NOT mean that this government is prioritizing self-interest; but sometimes the best way to serve universal human rights in the long term is a little self-preservation in the short term. For example, the United States should work to pull itself out of the recession, but not because national interest is the top priority. It should primarily do so because a country with a weakened economy is less capable of helping those whose rights have been violated. ======== C2. My opponent only seems to state a few facts about current US national policy, a case in which the government has no choice (which is irrelevant considering the resolution), and a single statement (which I'll get to in a bit). He does not refute the arguments in my second contention. I acknowledged the importance of universal human rights, the tragedies that occur when these rights are not respected, and that governments of free countries often declare certain rights to be universal, demonstrating how such great men as America's Founding Fathers are on my side. Other free governments agree, such as France (. http://www.mindconnection.com...) which states that "The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. " This statement could not be more clear. "It is wrong to require that people sacrifice for the sake of others. " What is the context of this statement? Is this meant to imply that placing human rights above national interest requires that the people of a nation are forced to make a sacrifice? If so, then it is equally arguable that to place national interest over human rights would require that people of many nations must sacrifice their human rights for the interests of the people within a nation. If this statement means what it seems to mean, and we assume that for a government to place its efforts in one area and not another requires a "sacrifice" by the people of the latter area, then it is immoral for the government to take any action, ever. ======== N2. The resolution states that the government is forced to choose between human rights and national interest. The elitist rule my opponent mentions is only an issue if there is a third option: letting the people decide. It is certainly arguable that such an option would be preferable to either of the first two. Regrettably, there is no such option. Even if there were, it doesn't mean that the people should get to decide. That would be nothing but mob rule. A truly just nation is bound by rule of law, not by the whims of the majority. The government is defined by the law, and as my case has demonstrated, the law ought to prioritize universal human rights over national interest. ======== N3. My opponent makes some bold statements, which he fails to justify. Certainly one could write an entire book about the the interests of others versus self. Unfortunately, we are limited to 8000 characters per round. Still, such books have already been written. Kant argued that self-preservation was a moral duty but only an indirect one, the more direct duty being universal (. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...). Utilitarians argue that everyone's happiness is equally important, so you should not necessarily prefer your own. And I'm sure that there are plenty of Libertarian philosophers out there who argue that you ought only be concerned with your own happiness and not that of society. The point is, attempting to argue that "[t]here is moral obligation to support and protect one's self and one's family [over universal human rights]" is going to be fruitless, and could continue for hundreds of pages. Even if I accept my opponent's bold statement (which I do not), I can still make a strong counter-argument. Just as individuals within the country in question may have to make a sacrifice if the resolution is affirmed, people worldwide must similarly sacrifice their human rights if the resolution is negated. Yes, it is arguable that only people within the just government are allowed to vote on the government's decisions. But, as my opponent stated earlier, it is not the people's choice. It is the government's. That may sound a bit authoritarian, but it's not. The government must choose between universal human rights and national interest; there is no third option. In this particular case, it is simply not the people's choice. ======== My opponent's arguments have gone outside the definitions of the debate, failed to address my arguments, and made unfounded claims. As of round 2, the resolution stands strong.