Meredith's Affirmative Case

Meredith’s Affirmative case

Intro: George Washington said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Freedom of speech is important because it keeps government in check. It allows the will of the people to be heard and exercised. Many times governments tend to pursue selfish, unpopular interests by limiting freedom of speech. For example:
A government persecuting the opposition might limit the use of the internet, so the people won’t learn about it. Or they can manipulate what is accessible on the internet. This is why I stand firmly behind the resolution. Resolved: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.

Definitions:
Government- The continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit

Legitimate- The quality or state of being lawfully begotten

Determined- Having reached a decision.

Respect- The quality or state of being esteemed.

Popular Sovereignty- A doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the will of the people.

Popular- Suitable to the majority

Sovereignty- Controlling influence

Individual- A particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection

Rights- The power to which one is justly entitled.

Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com


My value today is Freedom of Speech. Free Speech is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." My criterion is popular sovereignty because without free speech we cannot have the will of the people.


Cont. 1.)Freedom of Speech is an effective ingredient to achieve popular sovereignty.
The government represents the will of the people. So the people should have a say in what the government does. For example: During a referendum, citizens vote against granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and the government ignores the voice of the people and does not allow protests, then it is limiting freedom of speech.

Cont. 2.) Diversity in opinions allows a government to understand its people.
By allowing its population to express themselves and to voice their opinions, a government can be aware of the will of the people and make decisions of which the majority approves. However, opposition to some decisions of the government is a healthy way to allow government to adjust and make changes for the common good.

Cont. 3.) Government media intervention hinders freedom of speech.
Example: If the government demands that TV stations broadcast only positive things of the government and keeps commentators from voicing their opinions than it is clearly blocking freedom of speech and looking for its own interests.

Thank you and I now stand ready for cross examination.

Would you say the Freedom of Speech is an individual's right?

Yes

So you are saying that in order to have a legitimate government, it's citizens must have freedom of speech, correct? You said that freedom on speech Is an individual's right. So, in order to have a legitimate government must have individual rights, correct?

1.Yes
2.Yes

So would you agree that popular sovereignty is made up of individual rights?

If you can not have the will of the people without freedom of speech, then freedom of speech is really a criterion for popular sovereignty, correct?

Alex: Yes
Mark:Yes. Is it bad that it is a criterion??

Well a criterion isn't what is valuable, so in your case it isn't freedom of speech that is valuable it's the will of the people.

You stated in your second contention that 'Allowing the people to voice their opinions a government can be aware of the will of the people and make decisions of which the majority approves', correct?

Do you agree that the majority isn't always right and isn't always doing the right things?

With a short and simple answer could you please tell me why the government can't respect the will of the people without free speech?

Do you agree that the government can respect the will of the people with limited freedom of speech?

Isn't it true that letting the people have freedom of speech is saying they have liberty and are free and saying whatever they want?

Could you briefly clarify what you mean with your third contention tagline?

(If I'm right in what I think you are saying in your third contention...)You are saying that you don't what popular sovereignty with television shows because the newscasters can't express their opinion?

Are you wanting people to express their opinions and not be controlled by other people in what they think?

Do you want people to have liberty?

Could you briefly explain how freedom of speech achieves popular sovereignty?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. The government won't know what the people want, so they will choose what is best for the government.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. When government interferes with the media it creates difficulty for freedom of speech.
7. Can you rephrase that?
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. Because the people can express their opinions and get the will of the people.

Is freedom of Speech what makes a Government legitimate?

[EDIT] Meridith, looking over your case I noticed that you don't have any reasons why popular soveriegnty legitimizes a government. You might want to work on a contention that shows that.

So can you give me a brief answer on what makes a government legitimate?

I'm sorry...

7. You are saying that you don't want popular sovereignty with television shows because the newscasters won't be able to express their personal opinion/s.

I put 'what' instead of 'want'

Bethany: I think I get your question. Yes.
Nathan W. Sometimes

Would you agree that Freedom of Speech is an effective ingredient to Individual Rights?

Are you saying you don’t want the majority to put in its opinion to control other people?

In your case it basically says that the people are giving their opinion and the government does what the majority approves. Don’t you want the government to have freedom of speech also? They are people just in authority.

1. I agree
2. I do want the majority to put in its opinion.
3. Well the government should not give an opinion but the individuals in the government should.

answer to number:

2- Wouldn't that mean people put their opinion in then other people would be controlled by their opinion?

3- the individuals in the government is the government.