Sept/Oct LD Resolution

I will first attack my opponents case: My opponents value is natural rights or pursuit of said rights. His value flows toward my side. Points: 1. The natural rights of the United States is bound up in the bill of rights. However my opponent advocates a policy of "do as I say not as I do". Meaning infringing on your own believed natural rights which a person obtains from birth which are the basis of your country, one must or ought to up hold them. 2.The part of his case bothers me. "This phrase refers to the natural rights of those in a particular country" this makes natural rights seem like they are not universal when they are. Example, the USA believes every person has the right to life and liberty. We are taught that, and when we see another country acting against other people's liberty outside of the country we are outraged, we consider it immoral or wrong. Why? The idea of natural rights is you believe they are universal. 3. My opponent assumes the USA can't protect themselves and uphold the constitution and Geneva convention. His criterion national security. points: 1. Still assumes the US can't protect itself and uphold is ideals and obligations. Contention 1: 1: John locke, mark argument as some what irrelevant, as my opponent still believes that we can't protect ourselves and uphold natural rights aka the constitutions for terrorists. Lockes idea can be upheld with due process for terrorists. Contention 2: 1: Again terrorists are the same as criminals and deserve due process under the constitution the natural rights of the USA. All in all my opponent has explained that terrorists are an immediate threat that cannot be provided natural rights and due process because.... Well that's the thing he assumes they are such a threat that even captured and put to trial they will kill everyone Oh no scary scary terrorist in shackles and behind bars is going to kill everyone. They won't its obscured to think this way. When we capture terrorist and provide due process which we believe is a birth right we are not endangering the country. My defense. My opponents attacks are not very organized in clear points so I will pick out things and defend. My value is not bound to morality, and if a government is built on immoral laws or unjust laws as long as it maintains them it is acting in a legitimate way. My opponent arguing morality is irrelevant because a system like government is usually made up of people who have morals. Usually governments are somewhat made in a moral way, however if they are not that does not make the government illegitimate. What makes it illegitimate is if it does not follow its own status or laws. Morality being subjective to people one might think rape is ok therefore its moral. So he makes a government with a constitution all rape is legal. Then its legitimate as long as it upholds that ideal. "The affirmative enters the debate with a value of governmental legitimacy, and consequently the assumption that acting outside of the statutes to which he refers creates an illegitimate government. It is wrong 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. Therefore, government does have such a right, and upon exercising it, retains legitimacy." ---A government is illegitimate if it acts outside the restrictions its made for itself. That's just common sense, If I go and sign a contract not to talk to people, but I do anyway its usually a crime or wrong to do so. This is the US it was built with restrictions on each branch in mind. The whole must and ought argument is semantics and pisses me off, For one if we must do this to be a legitimate government don't you think we should or ought to achieve it? yes? good thanks for wasting time. Finally I disagree with my opponent that the social contract can be applied to my government as well, the only difference my opponent believes a government can be evil immoral thing which it can't under what my opponents locke. A government is define as a place out the state of nature in which laws make up and restrict citizens into a contract to bind some natural rights to remain safe. However I argue that a government built on a statue like the US that has the constitution and must uphold its essential building block in which it was made. This is the US we are talking about I prefer my opponent stay in such realm.