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

N1. "Pro clams that we even if we do not agree on what human rights are, they are all good so it doesn't matter. " Never did I make that claim. What I claimed is that the human rights defined by JUST governments are widely agreeable. As examples I gave the US definition and the French definition. I in the US find the French definition to be very agreeable. Other just nations will have similar definitions. The North Korean definition of human rights is irrelevant, because *North Korea is not a just government. * There may be debates among just governments over some human rights, but the most important ones -- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, among a small handful of others -- are widely agreed upon. If a government is going to enforce universal human rights, the first rights to enforce will be these. "If the resolution presumes that just countries exist and can be identified, then there is no need for a resolution to tell them what to do. " I hardly see the point of this argument. The resolution states that a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights. This is what I'm arguing. The resolution isn't telling them what to do, it's telling them what they ought to do. And if they're already doing it, then great. Is my opponent seriously arguing that the resolution must be negated if just governments already support it? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, his argument doesn't make any sense. The Chinese and North Korean governments are unjust. It is not simply a matter of difference of cultures. China's citizens are no more happy about the government's censorship than we Americans would be. Not all Eastern countries are so unjust, either: India, for example, supports the values of justice, liberty and equality (. http://www.astro.virginia.edu...), legally prohibits discrimination (. http://www.astro.virginia.edu...) and provides equal opportunity (. http://www.astro.virginia.edu...). We're talking about India here, which is about as Eastern as you can get. While it's true that there is disagreement among just governments over which specific rights are universal, the most important rights are agreed upon. The best course of action for a just government is to universally guarantee these primary universal human rights; the rights in dispute take secondary priority. A just government that is truly interested in universal human rights would spend its efforts on ensuring universal liberty, universal equality, or others of the paramount values that all peoples of the free world agree upon. "If A and B disagree over some right, then the resolution obligates them to prioritize that right above self-interest. " False. Obligation starts with the rights that are universally agreed upon among just governments. The next step is to work with the more contentious rights inside one's own country -- this is a case in which national interest and human rights are not in conflict, so the resolution does not deal with it. A government ought to start by ensuring the human rights of its citizens, which benefits both universal human rights and national interest. This is what just governments are doing most of the time. Once national human rights are ensured, governments move to the territory dealt with by the resolution. When everyone in one's own country is guaranteed their rights, the next step is not to make these people more comfortable, but to guarantee the rights of people outside the nation as well. And this guarantee begins with the most important rights, those discussed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence. C1. "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. " As my opponent later points out, human rights within one's own country are still human rights. India's support for its own citizens is in line with both universal human rights and national interest. My opponent claims that this fails because the resolution then becomes, "self-interest should be prioritized above self-interest. " Universal human rights and self-interest are clearly not the same thing, although they are often both achieved through the same means. My opponent's leap of logic makes no sense. The just thing for India to do is to prioritize human rights, which includes the rights of its citizens. C2. The American Revolution was about the interests of a people who were being robbed of their universal human rights. The founding of America was another of those cases in which human rights and national interest are not in conflict. I would argue that if you can maximize human rights AND national interest, then this is better than just one or the other. The Founding Fathers likely agreed, which is why they said "all men are created with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and went on to prioritize their own rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Human rights are far more significant than personal comforts. While ensuring one's own human rights or the human rights of a nation's citizens can take first priority, it is unjust to worry about the comfort of one's citizens when there are human beings throughout the world being stripped of their very rights. Helping people become more comfortable is charitable, but human rights is a matter of justice. If a just government does not have justice in mind, then why call it just? N2. I repeat: the resolution is a question of human rights and national interest. There is no third option. My opponent has not provided a substantial counterargument. N3. It is not a matter of self-sacrifice. The world has limited resources, and the just thing to do is to provide these resources to those who need them most. The only truly objectionable action a government could take against its citizens while acting in the interest of international human rights would be an actual violation of human rights. If a government using tax money to ensure the rights of human beings is ever considered unjust, it can only be because the taxation is a violation of the rights of the citizens of the nation. "Clearly placing the rights of others above self also fails. " I never proposed that the rights of others should be placed above the rights of self. What I am arguing is straightforward: when forced to choose, a government ought to prioritize universal justice -- the assurance of human rights for all -- over the comforts of the few. Let us assume for a moment that human rights are less important than self-interest. My opponent's argument still fails because he does not make a connection between self-interest and national interest. A single person has certain duties and obligations, and a nation has entirely different ones. It is absurd to argue that the morality we apply to a person should be identically applied to a government, which is on an entirely different scope. To put it simply: The government has resources. It may use these resources to support the mere comforts of its citizens, or it may use them to bring about justice. I think the choice is clear. Conclusion. My opponent has attempted to argue against the resolution itself, but has failed to back up his objections. He has failed to show that national interest ought to be prioritized, or even that universal human rights ought not be prioritized. I have demonstrated that, when forced to choose, supporting universal human rights is the only just course of action: comfort takes a subordinate position to rights. A government that truly cares about justice will prioritize human rights. The resolution is affirmed.