Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Ali's 2010 Negative refuting Alex Hendrix's Affirmative Case

Go down 
AuthorMessage
ali_n.

avatar

Number of posts : 58
Age : 22
Location : reality - its a lovely place but i don't like living there
Humor : original fairytales: death, horror, now sweet dreams kids!
Registration date : 2010-09-01

PostSubject: Ali's 2010 Negative refuting Alex Hendrix's Affirmative Case   Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:03 pm

Ali Nailor's 2010 Negative Case

Introduction:
Lord Acton, a member of Parliament for several years, once said: “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority.” When a government respects popular sovereignty over individual rights, the result is oppression. For this reason I strongly negate this year’s resolution: Resolved: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty that individual rights.

Definitions:
Government - The political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states.
Legitimacy - The state or quality of being legitimate (According to law; lawful)
Popular Sovereignty - A doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen to govern, as trustees of such power, must exercise it in conformity with the general will.
Individual - Single; particular; separate.
Rights - That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc...

Value:
My value for today is human rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Samuel Adams said: “Among the natural rights….First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” My criterion is individual rights, which are the basic necessities of a legitimate government.

Contentions:
#1
A legitimate government respects an individual’s rights to life. The general definitions of Natural Law, which our country was founded on, are rights to life, liberty, and property. Our government’s laws were founded on Natural law, and if a government’s legitimacy is its lawfulness, than it must respect rights to life, etc. This is crucial to a legitimate government.
#2
A legitimate government respects an individual’s rights to liberty. Liberty is one of the main standards of the Natural law our government was founded on. In fact, it was the main reason our country was founded. The oppressions our country suffered under Britain’s rule, such as heavy taxation, and no representation in Parliament, are examples of what a lack of liberty can lead to.
#3
A legitimate government respects an individual’s rights to property. Thomas Drummond, undersecretary in Ireland in the mid 1800’s, said: “Property has its duties as well as its rights.” An individual has the right to property if they use it correctly. A government that does not respect this right is not legitimate.

Rebuttal: (Alex Hendrix’s Affirmative Case)
Now I will refute my opponent’s case. My opponent’s first contention said that different interpretations of rights get in the way of equality. This does not make sense, and there is no definition of equality to help us understand exactly what it means.

Also, my opponent’s definition of Legitimacy simply says it is: “The quality or state of being legitimate.” This definition does not tell us anything, as we may have no idea what legitimate means.

In his second contention, my opponent states that a government must have control over its people. The contention states that a government must not let the rights of its people surpass the law. He did not mention the fact that even the most moral government can be corrupted if it has too much power, and it’s control can become tyranny.

My opponent’s third contention is summed up with a quote by Voltaire which says “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free.” The contention states that a government must strive to keep equality of basic rights among its people. This is not possible, as, though the majority may get the rights they want, the minority may view these “rights” they are receiving as restraints or problems.

Also, my opponent’s case had no citation of the sources for his definitions.

Conclusion:
To quickly revisit my case: A legitimate government is based on Natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. They are basic necessities. For these reason I strongly urge you to negate this year’s resolution: Resolved: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.

Sources:
1. Thinkexist.com (Samuel Adams quote)
2. Dictionary.com (all definitions)
3. Liberty-tree.ca (Lord Acton Quote)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
Ali's 2010 Negative refuting Alex Hendrix's Affirmative Case
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Mercredi 10 mars 2010 : l'horoscope
» Negative Church Dreams
» NYT - My Son Went to Heaven and All I Got was a No. 1 Best Seller
» BREAKING NEWS: MYSTERY ILLNESS KILLS ALEX JONES' FAMILY MEMBER & SICKENED MORE OF THEM..
» NEGATIVE SLIPPAGE

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Speech and Debate :: Misc. :: Speech and Debate Class 2010 :: Homework assignments :: Homework assigned on Nov 10th :: Negative Cases :: Negative Cases posted here-
Jump to: