Speech and Debate


Speak Out NC
 
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 
 

 Mark's Negative Case

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Mark Compton

avatar

Number of posts : 26
Age : 21
Registration date : 2010-08-26

PostSubject: Mark's Negative Case   Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:53 pm

“The true civilization is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself.” This quote by Robert Ingersoll, a Civil War veteran and an American political leader, shows that a legitimate government is one that gives every man his own rights.
Hello, my name is Mark Compton and I will be your negative speaker for this round. As the negative speaker I will urge you to negate the resolution which states as follows: a government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.


My value for this round is Prosperity and my criterion, or way to achieve my value, is individual rights.

Contention 1: Individual Rights are prominent in America
Individual rights are something that we hold dear in America, because they are an idea that our country was founded on. “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.” Our founding fathers believed that we should have individual rights and provided us with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the constitution. The constitution is the central law on which our government was founded and it upholds providing men with individual rights, so shouldn’t our government provide us with them? Liberty is one right that is very important to us and often sets the liberated countries from the rest of the world. America is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, because we provide our people with individual rights. If the countries that provide their citizens with rights are the most prosperous, then shouldn’t we respect individual rights over popular sovereignty? This leads me to my second contention.


Contention 2: Individual Rights legitimize
Respect for individual rights makes the people in a government content and have respect for the government. When the people respect the government they will work harder and make the country more prosperous. When a country becomes prosperous the people become even happier and continue to work making the country even more prosperous. Individual rights makes a government legitimate because they make the people happy, therefore getting their consent for the government, and makes the country more prosperous.


Conclusion: Individual rights are a standard that America, one of the most prosperous and legitimate governments ever, has upheld ever since the beginning, when our founding fathers wrote the constitution. They knew that individual rights were something that would make their country prosperous and legitimate, so they put them in the supreme law, the constitution. Individual rights legitimize a government because they get the consent of the people, make the country more prosperous, and make the governed people content.

Rebuttal of Andrew Smith’s case:
I will now discuss the problems with my opponent’s arguments. His value is democracy and his criterion is popular sovereignty. He states later in his case that democracy upholds popular sovereignty, saying that it is not democracy that is valuable, but popular sovereignty, his criterion. Then he said that when the government does what the people want then it is legitimate. To have the right to be able to vote for the president they want they first have to have the right to vote. The right to vote is an individual right, showing the popular sovereignty is actually an optional result of respect for individual rights. Then he talked about taking individual rights to improve the country. What if the majority of the people don’t want that right taken from them? Can the government go against the will of the people to take the right, and if so is the government still legitimate?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Bethany

avatar

Number of posts : 80
Age : 20
Location : I wish Disney World...in a Treehouse Villa
Humor : hmmm.....Mrs. Gray Perhaps...
Registration date : 2010-08-26

PostSubject: Re: Mark's Negative Case   Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:42 pm

What's your definition of prosperity?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Mark Compton

avatar

Number of posts : 26
Age : 21
Registration date : 2010-08-26

PostSubject: Re: Mark's Negative Case   Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:47 am

•an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment
that's not in my case but it's a good one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Mark's Negative Case   

Back to top Go down
 
Mark's Negative Case
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Mark (Daiji) Strathern
» Negative Church Dreams
» Bidders should not have any pending case filed against the SSS????
» BAC disqualifying bidder for losing a labor case before SC
» acceptable mark-up rate

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: