Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Katie's Negative Case (Rebuttal to Meridith's Case)

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Katie Eaton

avatar

Number of posts : 37
Age : 20
Location : USA
Registration date : 2010-08-18

PostSubject: Katie's Negative Case (Rebuttal to Meridith's Case)   Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:12 am

Intro:

If a majority is capable of preferring their own private interest or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... - John Adams

Value:


My value today will be Justice which is defined by Encarta® World Dictionary as: fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made.

Criterion:


To up hold my value today I present the criterion of Individual Rights. Why are individual rights necessary for Justice to be upheld? When people are given their individual rights they are given justice. Only when people are given their individual rights can justice prevail. When there is justice people have individual rights. They have rights that can’t be violated and therefore have justice.

Contentions:


Contention 1: Justice ensures the safety of the minority
In the Coliseum in ancient Rome the will of the mob determined whether a gladiator would live or die. His individual rights were neglected to satisfy the desires of the majority. These gladiator’s individual rights were violated for the majority’s pleasure. In order to protect the minority we must preserve individual rights.

Contention 2: Popular Sovereignty leads to Injustice
The biggest result of the popular sovereignty failing was the start of civil war. In the civil war 620,000 men died for African American slaves to get individual rights. These men were so determined that all people deserved individual rights. As Thomas Jefferson said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Contention 3: Justice leads to legitimacy
In the American fight for independence, the people of America stood up for their individual rights instead of being stepped on by Briton. Choices about them, and they weren't allowed to have a say..., not even a representative in parliament. When the people have justice through individual rights, then the government is legitimate. The people have justice and are treated fairly.

Rebuttal (Meredith’s Affirmative Case):

Now, I will refute my opponent’s case.
My opponent’s first contention stated: 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. So, In order to have a legitimate government, it's citizens must have freedom of speech which is an individual's right. So, in order to have a legitimate government must have individual rights. So In order to have popular sovereignty we must have individual rights.

In her second contention, my opponent stated that 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. Well the majority is not always right, so even if the government allows freedom of speech, the government could accept the will of the majority which could be wrong.

In my opponent’s third contention she stated: 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. That is violating the individual rights of the people, but the majority may have wanted that.


Conclusion
Justice ensures the safety of the minority. When individual rights are highly upheld, the minority is saved from harm. Popular sovereignty leads to injustice. When people are not given individual rights, they are not protected and people are harmed. When a government gives individual rights to the people, they are given justice. The government is legitimate when the people are given justice.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
Katie's Negative Case (Rebuttal to Meridith's Case)
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Negative Church Dreams
» a contractor with pending case eligible or qualify to join our bidding?
» Bidders should not have any pending case filed against the SSS????
» BAC disqualifying bidder for losing a labor case before SC
» ICAI to change exam pattern for CA Course...Case Studies to form part of Questions

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: