Ali's Affirmative Case

Affirmative Case
By Ali Nailor

Intro:
Abraham Lincoln said: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Basically, we make the choices, we decide. This is popular sovereignty. A truly legitimate government upholds and respects popular sovereignty. For this reason, today I’ll be promoting this year’s resolution. Resolved: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.

Definitions:
Before I continue with my constructive speech, I will do my best to clarify several terms by defining them for you:
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, and moral principles.

Value:
My value for today is unity, which is defined by Dictionary.com as "the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole". Without unity, there cannot be order, strength, prosperity, or anything else that defines a legitimate government. My criterion is popular sovereignty, which is defined by the unity of the people.

Contentions:
#1 –
Contention one: Individualism destroys unity. Patrick Henry, in his last public speech declared: “United we stand, divided we fall.” A government that values popular sovereignty most also value unity, as the two are closely linked. Individualism leads only to havoc. With no unity and control, each person will do whatever they believe it is their ‘right’ to do, with no laws to contain their actions. This leads to everyone trespassing on everyone else’s rights. This lack of respect initiates anger and violence. When unity is upheld by a government, the citizens actions have boundaries set by the laws which are approved by popular sovereignty, and the people are brought together. An example of this is all the tribes of roving people who occupied most of Europe around Mediterranean before it became the Roman empire. The tribes were constantly quarreling with one another, and were uncivilized and brutal. When the empire was forged, these people were civilized and united, which led to a strong nation.

#2 –
This leads to my next contention: Popular sovereignty promotes unity. “One man may hit the mark, another blunder: but heed not these distinctions. Only from the alliance of the one working with and through the other, are great things born.” said Antoine de Saint – Exupery. Together, different people can do great things. Popular sovereignty involves many different people who are upholding the same standard. This unifies them. With a common cause, the most different of people can be unified.

#3 –
My third and last contention: A legitimate government is unified. Thomas Jefferson said that, “The freedom and happiness of man...[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.” A unified people experience freedom and happiness. With the power and prosperity that come from unity, citizens of a legitimate government that follows this standard have great opportunities. A truly legitimate government, therefore, promotes unity and is unified.

Conclusion
A government’s legitimacy is determined by its respect for popular sovereignty because, based on my value of unity, individualism destroys unity, popular sovereignty promotes unity, and a legitimate government is unified. For these reasons I strongly urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you. I now stand ready for cross examination.

Sources:
1. democracy.ru/english/quotes.php – Abraham Lincoln quote
2. Dictionary.com –all definitions
3. Thinkexist.com – Antoine de Saint – Exupery quote
4. www.marksquotes.com – Thomas Jefferson quote[/b][b][b]

Can you have unity if everybody doesn't agree?

The people who do agree are unified, and the people who dont agree can in time come to see that the majority was right, and then they are all unified.

Is that majority always right?

So you are saying a government is legitimate if it is unified, correct? But no one will ever agree with the same principles, so we will never be fully unified, correct? So then you are saying that if the majority is unified, then the government is legitimate, correct? What if the majority appear to be correct, but after awhile they are not, are they still unified? If only the majority is unified, does that mean the minoirty isn't?

To Christian:
No.

To Alex:
Yes. Not necessarily. No. Yes. No. The minority is also unified.

Ok. I need a yes or no answer on whether or not we (the people) will ever fully agree with same principles.

no, not under normal circumstances.

So a government can never be fully united. Therefore, theey can never be fully legitimate.

no, it is still legitimate. Not everyone can be unified in any government.

But your arguments states that in order be legitimate, a government MUST be have unity. We can only assume that you mant complete unity unless you say otherwise...

-Okay, i'm sorry i wasn't clear on the subject. I mean that it must have some unity. But it is pretty much impossible to have complete unity.

p.s. Anna says that your questions are complicated and she doesn't understand them.

Would you say that Iraq under Sodom Hussein prospered or had social order?

I'm don't know much about that whole deal because i wasn't interested in politics when that was really really big, but from what i know, i think no, it didn't.

If individualism destroys unity, is unity uniformity?

I am sorry, but could you define uniformity? I looked up a definition and it didn't really clarify the meaning.

I choose to define unity as TOTAL unification. My opponent didn't define it, so we must use my definition.
You said that a government that is unified (TOTAL inification) is legitimate correct?
Do you agree that even if all but one agree, we are not TOTALLY unified?
Is everyone ever going to agree on the same thing?
So, because of my definition of unity, it is not even remotely possible for a government to be legitimate?

I am sorry i did not define unity..i realized that flaw after i posted my case, and didn't know how to fix it....technotard me. I define it as the majority unifed, the minority unified. Either way there is unification. In answer to your questions:
Yes, total unification would make a legitimate government.
We would not be totally unified by your definition.
Not everyone will ever agree on the same things, but those who disagree are unified.
By your definition of unity, it would be very difficult for a government to be legitimate. But if you listen to my definition of unity, it is possible.

I realize this. However, definitions must be given in the constructive speech.
Total unification is unification in every aspect of life, including thoughts. We are still using my definition here, so, in terms of unity, it is impossipble for a goverenment
to be legitimate correct?

Not totally impossible. As i said before it would be difficult, but it could be possible, though it is rather unlikely. Basically, no, not under normal circumstances according to your defintion.

Ali, Where'd you get these definitions?...

They are all from dictionary.com, as i believe i said in my citation of sources.