Japan should remove Article 9 of it's constitution

Thanks, Uther, for selecting me as your opponent for this neat debate. Since the BOP rests entirely for Pro, I don't particularly need to offer constructive arguments. Instead, my opening arguments will mostly be refutations of Pro's points.OVERVIEW1. Insofar as Pro has the BOP, it is not my job to show that Japan should keep Article 9; all I have to do is prevent Pro from showing that Article 9 should be removed.2. Since Pro's sources aren't enumerated, I can't always tell which sources go with which claims. This creates issues as some claims appear totally unwarranted.ARGUMENTSPRMS. War = Sovereign Right1. Rights Can be Waived. Rights are best understood as enforceable claims. For instance, if I have a contract with John that stipulates that he will mow my lawn every Thursday in exchange for $100, I have a claim to John's labor and time, and--reciprocally--John has a claim to my money if he shows up for work. These claims are legally enforceable, and I can use the law to compel John to deliver on the claim I have over him. In other words, I have a right to his work, and he has a right to my money in exchange for his work. Just as with any claim, I can choose not to assert it at any particular time. Suppose John is having some family troubles. I could choose not to exercise my claim over him out of sympathy for his present circumstances, and allow him to have a Thursday off. I, in effect, have waived my right to his work for that day. Similarly, I can choose, to waive my right to have a lawyer present if questioned by the police. I need not assert my rights or claims in every case. Therefore, it is not absurd to advance the possibility that a government or society may, collectively, waive a right.2. Sovereigns Self-limit. Pro defines "sovereignty" as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." Using this definition, any limitation on a state's authority is a violation of it's authority. Unless we want states that have no restrictions whatsoever (e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), we must accept that sovereignty comes with limits. No sovereign can govern absolutely, and there must be limits on what powers a state has to make and enforce laws. Since the purpose of sovereignty, as implied by this definition, is to limit external intervention in "internal" affairs, we can conjecture that the only reasonable limitations on sovereignty are those that have internal legitimacy, since these restrictions best respect the the end-goal of sovereignty. By "internal legitimacy," I mean popular, internal support. 3. Internal Support =/= No External Coercion. Many countries, through colonization or conquest or some other process have political systems that reflect foreign influence, but this foreign influence does not itself delegitimize the systems. If the systems are supported by the local people, the systems are still expressions of the will of the people consistent with the values of sovereignty. For instance, if you force X upon me, but it turns out I love X, it would be a violation of my wants and desires to take X away from me. Similarly, just because X may be imposed by an external force, if the people of a society love it, it would be a violation of their wishes and self-rule to rescind X.A1. Article 9 Infringes on Japan's SovereigntyJapan's Article 9 is popular today among Japanese. While exact poll numbers vary, the consensus among experts is that Japanese citizens support a pacifist constitution. To just reference a few sources: (a) "Annual opinion polls carried out by the Yomiuri Shimbun found the public’s approval rate for revising Article 9 fell to 30 percent in 2014 from 44.4 percent in 2004, while the percentage of those who do not wish to change the charter increased to 60 percent in 2014, compared with 46.7 percent in 2004...Abe is undoubtedly well aware that a majority of voters have consistently opposed any revision to Article 9 over the past 15 years." [1](b) "In the [Yomiuri Shimbun] poll, 51% did not support Japan's limited exercise of its right of collective self-defense, against only 36% who did support it. Opinion polls in other media outlets showed similar results. A poll conducted...by NHK...said that 38% supported the cabinet decision to approve the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, while 56% did not." [2](c) "Many ordinary Japanese support Article 9, which they credit with keeping the country out of war for 68 years. An opinion poll last month in the liberal-left Asahi newspaper found 63 percent of respondents oppose Mr Abe’s plans for Article 9." [3](d) "But in this case the proposed changes [to Article 9 to increase Japan's ability to exercise military force] went to the very heart of Japan's postwar charter, and were far too consequential for the process to be short-circuited. The critics included a majority of Japan’s constitutional scholars; nearly 10,000 people, including scholars, artists and a Nobel laureate, signed a petition opposing the new legislation, and tens of thousands of people have participated in demonstrations. Polls show voters oppose the legislation by a two-to-one margin." [4](e) "A recent Kyodo News poll found 60 per cent of respondents said the Japanese Constitution should not be altered, while 32 per cent called for changing it." [5] I think that this litany of evidence fairly clearly illustrates that the Japanese are on the side of Article 9. This has 2 impacts. Firstly, it shows that the Japanese people have "waived" their right to war by supporting a pacifist position. Secondly, it shows that the legislation has internal support, and is thus not a violation of sovereignty. Even if it was imposed on Japan, it was embraced by the Japanese, and so is not currently violating their sovereignty. What may have initially been an encroachment upon them has now become an expression of the vox populi.A2. Self-Defense"In the Sunakawa case, decided in 1959, shortly before the US-Japan Security Treaty was to be renewed, the defendants to criminal proceedings for trespassing on a US Forces base challenged the constitutionality of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the presence of US military forces in Japan...The Court went on to comment, however, that Article 9 did not deprive Japan of the inherent right of self-defense, and that such measures or arrangements that were limited to the purpose of protecting Japan would not therefore be inconsistent with Article 9." [6] Clearly, therefore, the constitutional law surrounding Article 9 does not prohibit self-defense, essentially making this point moot. Given this, and given that Japan has a mutual defense pact with the U.S., [7] it seems implausible that Japan would be unable to protect itself or fulfill its national security needs even with Article 9 in place.A3. ExpansionismThis is essentially a preemptive defense of an anticipated attack by Pro. It doesn't offer any unique reason to affirm the topic. In other words, that Japan isn't expansionist is not a reason to remove Article 9 or why doing so is good, it's just a reason why doing so isn't bad. So, this has no constructive offense for Pro, and cannot win him the debate.PACIFISM1. Nations that act in a pacifistic fashion are naturally less provocative to their neighbors. Thus, they are less likely to be targets of aggression.2. Pacifism prevents the military from gaining too much political power which could give it outsized influence in the society and/or threaten constitutional government.3. Pacifism impedes a country's ability to get entangled in costly wars.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...Pro hasn't furnished sufficient reason to affirm. Thus, I negate. I turn the floor over to Pro...